K.Ramesh v. The District Magistrate And

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.09.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P(MD)No.497 of 2015 K.Ramesh .. Petitioner Vs.

1. State represented by The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

2. The Secretary, to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records from the 1st respondent in P.D.No.12/2015, dated 17.03.2015 by setting aside the said order of detention passed by the 1st respondent and setting the detenu, Ajainth @ Jeganath, aged about 25 years, S/o. Jeyapaul, at liberty, now detained in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J] The petitioner is the brother-in-law of Mr.Ajainth @ Jeganath, S/o. Jeyapaul, aged at 25 years. He has been detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by the order of the first respondent in P.D.No.12/2015 dated 17.03.2015 branding him as a "Goonda". Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly focus his arguments on the ground that there is violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and under Section 8(1) of Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982.

4. In this case, the order of detention was made on 17.03.2015 and on the same day, he was lodged in prison. Admittedly, the booklet containing the materials considered by the Detaining Authority and the satisfaction arrived at were served on the detenu only on 23.03.2015. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is violation of Section 8(1) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in this case, as soon as the detenu was detained under the detention order, the grounds of detention were furnished to him on 17.03.2015 itself, in which, the booklet containing the materials of the Detaining Authority are not furnished him on the same day. It is furnished on 23.03.2015. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no violation of Section 8 (1) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as well as Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

6. We have considered the above submissions.

7. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that preventive detention, being a detention without a proper trial and proof of any offence, the provision should be construed very strictly. The right to have earliest opportunity of making representation against the detention order has been guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The said provision reads as follows:

"Article 22. (5). When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order."

8. Section 8(1) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 reads as follows:

"8.Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order. (1).When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government."

A plain reading of these provisions would go to show that it is not only enough to communicate the detenu, the grounds on which, the order has been made and also he shall be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. It is only in compliance with these provisions, the booklet containing the materials, which have been considered by the Detaining Authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order are furnished. In the absence of the service of these papers, the detenu cannot have an opportunity to effectively make a representation.

9. In such view of the matter, though it is true that in this case, the grounds of detention were communicated to him on 17.03.2015, other papers were served only on 23.03.2015, which, in our considered view, is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and similarly Section 8(1) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982. Such view has been taken in an earlier order passed by yet another Division Bench of this Court in Malleeswari -vs- State Government and another reported in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 513, wherein in paragraph No.7 as follows:

"It is not in controversy that the order of detention came to be set aside on the grounds recorded above. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the impugned detention order came to be passed on 02.03.2010, a copy of the same and the grounds of detention and connected papers were supplied to the detenu only on 09.03.2010. From a reading of the detention order and grounds, it is quite clear that the copies of the adverse cases and the ground case, were to be supplied to the detenu not exceeding five days from the date of the order of detention. In the present case on hand, though the impugned detention order was passed on 02.03.2010, it was supplied to him only on 09.03.2010, which is violative of the mandatory provision."

In view of the above said provisions, in this case, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order, passed by the first respondent, in his proceedings in P.D.No.12/2015, dated 17.03.2015 is quashed. The detenu, namely, Ajainth @ Jeganath, S/o.Jayapal, aged 25 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

To

1. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

2. The Secretary, to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

3. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

(In Dupliate to communicate the detenu) 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.K.Prabhu, Advocate SR.No.51897 akm/09.09.2015 /4p-8c/ ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.497 of 2015 04.09.2015