Vasuki v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.10.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH H.C.P.(MD)No.1570 of 2022 Vasuki ... Petitioner /Sister of the Detenu Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Office of the The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Thanjavur.

3.The Superintendent, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy.

4.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.

... Respondents

PRAYER:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Detention Order in PD.No. 14/2022 dated 11.02.2022 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu, Veerasamy, S/o.Sivasamy, aged 32 years, now confined at Central Prison, Trichirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Baalasundaram For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

J. NISHA BANU,J.

and N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.

The petitioner is the sister of the detenu viz., Veerasamy, S/o. Sivasamy, aged 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order in PD.No.14/2022 dated 11.02.2022 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 many grounds have been raised in the petition, the main ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the arrest intimation was not given to the near relative of the detenue. It is further stated that the arrest memo that has been provided only shows that the mobile number which the SMS has been sent and no particulars have been given as to the person in whose name the mobile stand. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that mandatory requirements of informing the arrest was not made to the relative of the detenu and therefore, the detention order is vitiated on that ground.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the sister of the detenu through SMS.

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.91 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 sister of the detenu through SMS, but, no materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Thapal or Registered post or as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the relatives of the detenu would amount to deprivation of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and the same 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 P.D.No.14/2022 dated 11.02.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Veerasamy, S/o. Sivasamy, aged 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

(J.N.B.,J.) & (N.A.V.,J.) 19.10.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes PJL To:

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Office of the The District Collector cum District Magistrate,

Thanjavur.

3.The Superintendent, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy.

4.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjavur District.

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

J. NISHA BANU,J.

and N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.

PJL H.C.P.(MD)No.1570 of 2022 19.10.2022