Subena v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu, Rep
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18..11..2022 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.1133 of 2022 Subena W/o Yusuf ..... Petitioner -Versus1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Police (L & O-F) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Karamadai Police Station, Coimbatore District.
.... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in detention order in Crl.M.P.No.11/G/2022/E1 dated 12.04.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's husband Yusuf Son of Mohammed, Male, aged about 45 years, the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore before this court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvakumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Yusur, Son of Mohammed. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Crl.M.P.No.11/G/2022/E1 dated 12.04.2022, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of 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. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the sponsoring authority has stated in the Arrest Memo at page No.181 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the wife of the detenu. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the wife of the detenu. Therefore, it is stated that the detenu was deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of furnishing of full particulars by the detaining authority. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the wife of the detenu through SMS.
5. However we find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such
cases that the detention order cannot be sustained. 6.As evidenced from the document in page No.181 of the Booklet furnished to us, a mere endorsement is made by the authorities to the effect that the arrest intimation has been informed to the wife of the detenu through SMS, but, no materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Thapal or Registered post or as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the relatives of the detenu would amount to deprivation of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and the same would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
7. It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.
8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Crl.M.P.No.11/G/2022/E1 dated 12.04.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Yusuf, Son of Mohammed, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(P.N.P., J.) (TKR., J.) 18..11..2022 Index: Yes/No kmk
To 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Police (L & O-F) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Karamadai Police Station, Coimbatore District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH.J., AND RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J., kmk H.C.P.No.1133 of 2022 18..11 ..2022