Maruthamalai v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu, Rep By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.08.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.1983 of 2024 Maruthamalai ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Home, Prohibition, Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Villuppuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore. 5.The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Villupuram District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, direct the Respondent to produce the detenue Maruthamalai, S/o.Elumalai, Male aged about 25 years, before this Court now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set him at liberty by
setting aside the detention order passed in RC.No.C2/3/2024/Villupuram/2024 dated 28.02.2024 and pass such further order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings RC.No.C2/3/2024/Villupuram/2024 dated 28.02.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 2.The list of property sent to the learned Magistrate, which is enclosed in Pg.Nos.30 and 31 in the typed set of papers relied by the Detaining Authority, furnished to the detenue are illegible. In view of the fact that illegible documents were served, the detenue has been deprived of submitting effective representation, which is a mandate under the statute.
3. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenue should be afforded an opportunity of making representation effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenue, is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows: "9.However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention.
Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order.
thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of nonsupply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language. .....
16.For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed."
4. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings RC.No.C2/3/2024/Villupuram/2024 dated 28.02.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Maruthamalai, S/o.Elumalai, Male aged about 25 years
the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. [S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.] 28.08.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No gd To 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Home, Prohibition, Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Villuppuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd 5.The Inspector of Police, Mailam Police Station, Villupuram District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
H.C.P.No.1983 of 2024 28.08.2024