Punithavalli v. State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.10.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN H.C.P. No. 1541 of 2019 Punithavalli ... Petitioner/ Mother of the detenue W/o.Devaraj -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in C3/D.O/67/2018, dated 03.11.2018 passed by the second respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Mani, S/o. Devaraj, aged about 43 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set the petitioner's son Mani, S/o. Devaraj, aged about 43 years the detenu herein at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.U.Yuvaraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petition is the mother of the detenu, Mani, S/o.Devaraj, male, aged 43 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C3/D.O/67/2018, dated 03.11.2018, 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 copy of the document relied on by him and the remand order has not been properly translated in vernacular language. 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.93 & 94 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copy of the document, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. Apart from that, the remand order has not been properly translated in vernacular language. 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 C3/D.O/67/2018, dated 03.11.2018 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Mani, S/o.Devaraj, male, aged 43 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi/ssm To
1. The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Cuddalore District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Cuddalore.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and order) Fort.St.George, Chennai 9. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No. 1541 of 2019 A.SK(12/12/2019)