Rajaprabhu v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.12.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH H.C.P.(MD)No.1091 of 2022 Rajaprabhu ... Petitioner / Detenue Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District.
Theni.
3.The Superintendant of Central Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.
...Respondents
PRAYER:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in Detention Order No.44 of 2022 dated 19.05.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name, Rajaprabu,
S/o.Jeyachandran, aged about 37 years, now detained as 'Drug Offender' Madurai Trichy Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH,J.
and N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.) The petitioner is the detenu viz., Rajaprabu, S/o.Jeyachandran, aged about 37 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No.44 of 2022 dated 19.05.2022 holding him to be a "Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) 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 many grounds have been raised in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the sponsoring authority has stated in the Arrest Memo at page No.86 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the distant relative of the detenu. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the distant relative of the detenu. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total nonapplication of mind.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the distant relative of the detenu through SMS. He further submitted that investigation has been
completed and charge sheet has been filed on 09.06.2022 on time and it was taken on file in C.C.No.532 of 2022 before the EC Court, Madurai, and the case stands posted on 06.12.2022.
5. However, we find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such cases that the detention order cannot be sustained.
6. As evidenced from the document in page No.86 of the Booklet furnished to us, a mere endorsement is made by the authorities to the effect that the arrest intimation has been informed to the distant relative of the detenu through SMS, but, no materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Tapal or Registered post or as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the relatives of the detenu would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
7. It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the
obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.
8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Detention Order No.44 of 2022 dated 19.05.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Rajaprabu, S/o.Jeyachandran, aged about 37 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (M.S.R.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.) 02.12.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Sm
M.S.RAMESH,J.
and N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
Sm To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District.
Theni.
3.The Superintendant of Central Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
H.C.P.(MD)No.1091 of 2022 02.12.2022