M.Sivanthammal v. State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.11.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA H.C.P.(MD)No.1362 of 2017 M.Sivanthammal : Petitioner Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department (XVI) Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Pudukottai District Pudukottai.

3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records in detention order passed in P.D.O.No.16/2017 dated 03.05.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's husband namely, Mani, son of Sabapathi, aged about 48 years, before this Court and set him at liberty from Central Prison, Trichy. For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Rajasekaran For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor *********

ORDER

****** [Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz.Mani, son of Sabapathi, aged about 48 years. The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the first respondent, dated 03.05.2017, under Section 2(ggg) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as

"Sexual Offender". Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully. 3.The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the affidavit filed by the sponsoring authority was attested by the detaining authority himself prior to the date of passing the detention order. In this regard, drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit submitted by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrated that the Detaining Authority attested the affidavit filed by the sponsoring authority on 02.05.2017 and passed the detention order on 03.05.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the attestation made by the Detaining Authority in the affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority would show the predetermination of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. Hence, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the records carefully.

5. The issue involved in this Habeas Corpus Petition has already been dealt with, elaborately, by this Court in H.C.P.(MD) No.857 of 2016, dated 24.01.2017, [Muthukumar @ Vellaian, Vs. The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009], wherein this Court, after having considered various Judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Paragraph No.11, has held as follows:- "11.Of-course, it is true that the detaining authority is obligated to consider the materials placed before it independently and then to pass order on merits, without influencing the contents set out in the affidavit. However, the detaining authority cannot play a dual role, i.e.

, in one role he, being as a higher officer, affirms the necessity of the action to be taken and in another role, he, being the detaining authority, passes an order of detention. If the affidavit of the sponsoring authority is signed by some other higher official, then the question of possibility of predetermination would not arise. Since, in this case, the detaining authority played dual role, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same led to predetermination of mind on the part of the detaining authority, is acceptable.

6. Following the said decision, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in P.D.O.No.16/2017 dated 03.05.2017 is quashed. The detenu, namely Mani, S/o.Sabapathi, aged about 48 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 Principal Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department (XVI) Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Pudukottai District Pudukottai.

3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & order), Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

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

+ 1 cc TO Mr.A.V.Rajasekaran , Advocate in SR No. 89826 RR AE/SV MMS/SAR2/08.12.2017/3P/7C Order made in H.C.P.(MD)No.1362 of 2017 Dated: 28.11.2017