K.Vanitha v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.V.BHARATHIDASN H.C.P.No.152 of 2016 K.Vanitha ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police.

... 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 relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent pertaining to the order made in BCDFGISSSV No.960/2015 dated 18.09.2015 in detaining the detenu under 2(F) of Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Karthik, son of Chandran, male, aged 24 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66 before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Sundar Rajan For Respondents :

Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.] The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Thiru Karthik, son of Chandran, aged about 24 years, has come forward with this petition, challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 18.09.2015, against her husband 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.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.173 in the booklet, furnished to the detenu, is illegible and could not be read at all. This illegible copy, would deprive the detenu of making effective representation, to the authorities, against the order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated, on this ground 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.173, are 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 impugned detention order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kua To

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

2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 66.

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.152 of 2016 MP 1(CO) CA(13/07/2016)