R.Sangeetha v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.04.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN H.C.P.NO.1883 OF 2020 R.Sangeetha .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-7.

2. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Madras - 600 009.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the detention order of Rajasekar @ Kattan Raj, son of Ramesh, aged about 24 years, presently confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, in Memo No.386/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 21.09.2020, passed by the 1st respondent under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.D.Rajendra Prasad For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of Rajasekar @ Kattan Raj, son of Ramesh, aged about 24 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the first respondent by his order in Memo No.386/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 21.09.2020, 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 and we have also perused the records carefully.

3.

Though several grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the remand extension order pertaining to the ground case placed before the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu, which caused great prejudice to the detenu and he has been prevented from making an effective representation for consideration of the authorities concerned. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law. 4.

A perusal of the booklet would go to show that the remand extension order pertaining to the ground case placed before the detaining authority has not been enclosed in the booklet furnished to the detenu. Therefore, non-furnishing of the above materials would obviously deprive of his opportunity to make effective representation and hence, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground.

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.386/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 21.09.2020, passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Rajasekar @ Kattan Raj, son of Ramesh, aged about 24 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nsd

To

1. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-7.

2. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Madras - 600 009.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.S.V.D.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, S.R.No.25170 H.C.P.No.1883 of 2020 RLD(CO) CS/30/04/2021