Chandru @ Chanran @ Thavakalai v. The Secretary To Govt.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.6.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN H.C.P.No.199 of 2016 Chandru @ Chandran @ Thavakalai Chandru ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 096.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the detaining authority to produe the detenu Chandru @ Chandran @ Thavakalai Chandru, aged about 24 years, s/o. Sankar, No.3, Rettamalai Srinivasan Street, Ambedkar Puratchi Nagar, Kallukuttai, Perungudi, Chennai- 600 096, presently detained in the Central Prison in Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court by calling for the records relating to the preventive detention order dated 12.11.2015 which was passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Govindan For Respondents :

Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The petitioner is the detenu, who has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 as a "Goonda" as per the order of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, in BCDFGISSSV No.1177/2015 dated 12.11.2015. Challenging the same, he has come up with this petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents and also perused the records carefully. 3.Though, several grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the detaining authority in paragraph No.4 of the order has stated about the case in Cr.No.2775/2016 on the file of J-13 Taramani Police Station as though the petitioner has been in remand in the said case. In fact, he is not an accused in the said case on the file of the Taramani Police Station. According to the learned counsel this shows non application of mind of detaining authority. We are in full agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not known as to how the detaining authority mentioned that the petitioner is an accused in Cr.No.2775 of 2015.

4. In such a view of the matter, we are inclined to quash the proceedings.

5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in No.BCDFGISSSV No.1177/2015 dated 12.11.2015 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, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 096.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai.

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.

+1cc to Mr.K.Govindan, Advocate, S.R.No.34202 H.C.P.No.199 of 2016 MP 1(CO) CA(13/07/2016)