Ramesh v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN H.C.P.NO.1150 OF 2021 Ramesh .. Petitioner/ Brother of the Detenue Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary to Government, (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandalore Sub-Division, Chengalpattu District.
5. The Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Chengalpattu.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.25/2021 dated 28.06.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's brother by name Suresh @ Ammu, son of Srinivasan, aged about 38 years, before this Court, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mohana Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the brother of the detenu Suresh @ Ammu, son of Srinivasan, aged about 38 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 28.06.2021 in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.25/2021, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.
3.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the extension of interim orders in suo motu W.P.No.11993 of 2021 has not been translated in vernacular language. He further submitted that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4.
On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.245 to 253 of the booklet, it is clear that the extension of interim orders in suo motu W.P.No.11993 of 2021 has not been translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.25/2021 dated 28.06.2021, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Suresh @ Ammu, son of Srinivasan, aged about 38
years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nsd To
1. The Secretary to Government, (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandalore Sub-Division, Chengalpattu District.
5. The Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Chengalpattu.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1150 of 2021 MG(CO) PM/25/03/2022