Ellamma v. The Principal Secretary To The Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.(MD)No.212 of 2023 Ellamma .. Petitioner /Wife of Detenu Vs.

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

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent made in his proceedings in C.No.175/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2022 dated 05.12.2022 in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the

detenu namely Sekar S/o.Govindappa, Male, aged about 28 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Sekar, S/o.Govindappa, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.175/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2022 dated 05.12.2022 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of 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 the 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 Government Order in G.O.(D).No.198, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 14.07.2022 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter.

5. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially Page Nos.87 and 88 of the booklet, it is clear that the Government Order in G.O.(D).No.198, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 14.07.2022 has not been translated in vernacular language. Hence, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.175/Detention/C.P.O/T.C/2022 dated 05.12.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Sekar, S/o.Govindappa, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (M.S.R.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 24.07.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Lm/Yuva

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

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St.George, Chennai.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

M.S.RAMESH,J.

and M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

Lm/Yuva H.C.P.(MD)No.212 of 2023 24.07.2023