Tmt.Shanthi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.05.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN H.C.P.No. 189 of 2016 Shanthi ..Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai -600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore District, Vellore.
..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 14.12.2015 in his office Ref.C3.D.O.No.116/2015 against the petitioner's son by name Thiru. Gopi, S/o. Harikrishnan, aged about 29 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr. E.Kannadasan For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja Addl. Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by G.CHOCKALINGAM, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in C3/D.O.No.116/2015 dated 14.12.2015, whereby the detenu, namely Gopi, S/o Harikrishnan, aged about 29 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders,
Sexual Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".
2. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.E.Kannadasan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has been remanded to judicial custody in the adverse cases in Cr.Nos.337/2014, 341 of 2014 (registered by Pallikonda police station and 87/2015 (registered by the Kalavai Police Station) and though a mention has been made by the Detaining Authority in respect of the ground case in paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention, the factum of the remand of the detenu in the adverse cases in Cr.Nos.337/2014, 341 of 2014 (registered by Pallikonda police station and 87/2015 (registered by the Kalavai Police Station) has not been reflected. This is indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and hence, submitted that the detention order is vitiated 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 and citation.
6. As could be evidenced from the Grounds of Detention, the detenu was arrested in the adverse cases in Cr.Nos.337/2014, 341 of 2014 (registered by Pallikonda police station and 87/2015 (registered by the Kalavai Police Station). But the factum of remand of the detenu in the adverse cases in Cr.Nos.337/2014, 341 of 2014 (registered by Pallikonda police station and 87/2015 (registered by the Kalavai Police Station) has not been reflected in paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention. When nothing has been stated about the remand of the detenu in the said adverse cases, it is not known whether the detenu has filed any bail application in the said adverse cases or not. If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said adverse cases. Hence, the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention order in total nonapplication of mind which would vitiate the detention order.
7. It is 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 grounds.
9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order 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.
ga Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To
1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai -600 009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore District, Vellore.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.
5. The Joint Secretary to Govt.
Public (Law & Order), Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.
KR/1/6/16 H.C.P.No.189 of 2016