K.Prabha v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.08.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN H.C.P.No.128 of 2016 K. Prabha .. Petitioner vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government[Home], Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

..

Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent, in his proceeding BCDFGISSSV. No.1259/2015 Dated 18/12/2015 to quash the sameand consequently direct therespondentsto produce the Detenu, Kumar, S/o.Dakshinamurthy Aged 34 years now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

M/S. M.Mariappan For Respondents :

Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Bootlegger" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in No.B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V. No.1259/2016 dated 18.12.2015.

2.Though, many grounds have been raised in the petition, the 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. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, page No.3 & 5 in the booklet, furnished to the detenu, is illegible and could not be read at all. This illegible copies, would deprive the detenu of making effective representation, to the authorities, against the order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated, on these grounds and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that, the order of detention has been passed, on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with, at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition, does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.

6. A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu, would show that the copies of documents referred and relied upon and referred to by the Detaining Authority, in particular, page No. 3 & 5 is illegible and are totally unreadable. This has resulted in the detenu being deprived of making an effective representation. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

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.

8. In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground.

9. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order dated 18.12.2015, passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (J) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

1. The Secretary to Government[Home], Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St. George, Chennai.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

evr(co) krd 30/8 H.C.P.No.128 of 2016