Gandhimathi v. State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.09.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN H.C.P.No.1445 of 2019 Gandhimathi ... Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 7.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.324/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 12.06.2019 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's husband Saravanan S/o. Chinnaiya aged about 31 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set aside the petitioner's husband Saravanan S/o.Chinnaiya aged about 31 years the detenu herein at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kaveriselvam For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The detenu himself is the petitioner. He has come up with this habeas corpus petition, challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent, vide Memo
No.324/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 12.06.2019, branding him as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
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 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 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 this sole ground, 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.116, 125 and 128 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copies of the documents, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.
5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.324/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 12.06.2019 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Saravanan S/o. Chinnaiya aged about 31 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 mmi/ssm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 7.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No. 1445 of 2019 srg 14/11/2019