Maragatham v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.11.2023 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Maragatham .. Petitioner/Wife of the detenu vs 1.State represented by, The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
.. Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records from the second respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.72/2023 dated 11.07.2023 by setting aside the said order of detention passed by the second respondent and setting the detenu Velladurai, Son of 1/29
Shanmugam @ Shanmugaservai, aged about 45 years at liberty now detained in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. For Petitioner :
Mr.K.Prabhu For Respondents :
Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [ hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] was listed before us in the Admission Board on 11.10.2023 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
2/29
3/29
4/29
2.The aforementioned 11.10.2023 Admission Board order captures all essentials ie., factual matrix in a nutshell and therefore, we are not setting out the same again in this final order. Suffice to say that aforementioned Admission Board order shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this final order. This means that the short forms, short references and other references in the nature of abbreviations made in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant final order also for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3.We now plunge into Habeas legal drill on hand. 5/29
4.As would be evident from the Admission Board order and more particularly paragraph 5 thereat at the time of Admission, learned counsel for petitioner has posited his challenge to the impugned preventive detention order on the ground that copy of similar case bail application had not been furnished to the detenu but today learned counsel changed his line of attack and predicated his campaign against impugned preventive detention order on the point that it does not pass muster as regards detenu 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order' more particularly vide Section 2(a)(iii) of Act 14 of 1982 read with Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982. 5.
In response to the aforementioned argument, learned Prosecutor drew our attention to a portion of paragraph 3 of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order which reads as follows: '..... On seeing his daring acts of terror, the public who were standing near ran helter - skelter. Nearby shopkeepers closed their shops and ran away to save their lives and properties with fear and panic. The persons, who rode cycle and motor cycle, left them and ran with fear and panic.....'
6/29
6.Adverting to the aforementioned portion in paragraph 3 of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order, learned Prosecutor submitted that aforementioned narrative in the impugned preventive detention order grounds would demonstrate that there was action prejudicial to maintenance of public order qua detenu. 7.We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 8.We find one important aspect of the matter, that important aspect of the matter is ground case as well as adverse case cited in impugned preventive detention order appears to be a family dispute or in other words a marital discord. To be noted, detenu Thiru.Vellaidurai is married to complainant Lakshmanan's sister. The ground case occurrence is on 14.06.2023 for an alleged offence under Section 392 of IPC, which is the punishment Section for the offence of robbery under Section 390 of IPC and the adverse case occurrence is on 04.05.2023 again under similar circumstances but for alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC though there is nothing to demonstrate that there was any 7/29
injury to anyone. To put it differently, we find that ground case and adverse case which constitute a substratum of impugned preventive detention order pertain to certain altercation between detenu and his brother-in-law and father-in-law pertaining to some marital discord between detenu and his spouse.
9.Be that as it may, as regards the public order point ie., acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order point, the same was dealt with by this Court in detail in V.Kalaiselvi Thangam's case [V.Kalaiselvi Thangam Vs. The Additional Chief High Court being 2023/MHC/5092]. We deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce the entire case law as reported in Netural Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/5092 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
8/29
9/29
10/29
11/29
12/29
13/29
14/29
15/29
16/29
17/29
18/29
19/29
20/29
21/29
22/29
23/29
24/29
25/29
10.In V.Kalaiselvi Thangam's case, lone averment in the grounds of impugned preventive detention order has been extracted in different font in paragraph 5 thereat.
11.In the case on hand, the averments to which our notice was drawn by learned Prosecutor, contained in paragraph 3 of grounds of impugned preventive detention order are not very different. To put it differently, there is no material to show that public order has been put at peril or in other words there is no material to demonstrate that there is any action qua detenu which is prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The celebrated Ram Manohar Lohia's case [Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in AIR 1966 SC 740] is one where Hon'ble Supreme Court propounded three concentric circles doctrine and the relevant portions have been extracted and dealt with in V.Kalaiselvi Thangam's case which has been reported in Netural Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/5092 and which has also been set out supra.
26/29
12.We find that V.Kalaiselvi Thangam's case principle would apply in all force to the case on hand. This means that impugned preventive detention order is vitiated and it has become vulnerable for being dislodged in this habeas legal drill, as there is no material to demonstrate that detenu is acted in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order much less any action in this regard within the meaning of Section 2(a)(iii) read with Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.
13.Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 11.07.2023 bearing reference M.H.S.Confdl.No.72/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Velladurai, aged 45 years, son of Thiru.Shanmugam alias Shanmugaservai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 20.11.2023 Index : Yes/No ps 27/29
Post Script: (i) Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. (ii) All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Proibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
28/29
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., ps 20.11.2023 29/29