Jayalakshmi v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.04.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN H.C.P.NO.1935 OF 2021 Jayalakshmi W/o.Subburayalu .. Petitioner Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

4. The Inspector of Police, Reddichavadi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

.. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 16.09.2021 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings in C3/D.O.No.34/2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu Iyyanar (a) Chinna Iyyanar (a) Rose Iyyanar s/o.Subburayalu, aged 21 years, before this Court, who is detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.C.C.Chellappan For Respondents :

Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by A.A.NAKKIRAN, J] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Iyyanar (a) Chinna Iyyanar (a) Rose Iyyanar s/o.Subburayalu, aged 21 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C3/D.O.No.34/2021 dated 16.09.2021 , holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

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 arrest intimation pertaining to the ground case has not been fully translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on these grounds, 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 No.120 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation pertaining to the ground case has not been fully translated in vernacular language. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3/D.O.No.34/2021 dated 16.09.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Iyyanar (a) Chinna Iyyanar (a) Rose Iyyanar s/o.Subburayalu, aged 21 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// gm Sub Assistant Registrar

To

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

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

4. The Inspector of Police, Reddichavadi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.

6. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.1935 of 2021 RSI(CO) PM/08/04/2022