Murugan v. The Secretary To The Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN H.C.P.No.2061 of 2020 Murugan, S/o.Narayanasamy
...Petitioner/detenu
versus 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore-2.
5.The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 26.09.2020 in D.O.No.100/2020-C2 against the detenu Murugan, Male, aged 48 years, son of Narayanasamy, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents :
Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.] The petitioner is the detenu viz. Murugan, son of Narayanasamy, aged about 48 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.100/2020-C2 dated 26.09.2020, 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 we have also perused the records carefully. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has filed a counter and strongly opposed this Petition.
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 has not been enclosed and not supplied 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 ground case remand extension order 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.
5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.100/2020-C2 dated 26.09.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz. Murugan, son of Narayanasamy, aged about 48 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sri
To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore-2.
5.The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2061 of 2020 GPL(CO) RN(03/05/2021)