Shanmugalakshmi v. The Principal Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.(MD)No.1330 of 2023 Shanmugalakshmi : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Commissioner of Police, (Tirunelveli Range), O/o. Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.
3.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City.
(Crime No.1034/2023)
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City.
: Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in C.No.40/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 25.09.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue namely Vigneshwar alias Vikki, son of Murugan aged about 27 years now detained as "Goonda" at Central Prison, Palayamkottai and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Hashim For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
*********** [Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] was listed before this Bench in the Admission Board on 03.11.2023 and this Bench made the following order:
''H.C.P(MD)No.1330 of 2023 M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
O R D E R
************ [Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 30.10.2023 inter alia assailing a 'detention order dated 25.09.2023, bearing reference No. 40/BCDFGISSSV/2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity] made by 'second respondent' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience].
2.To be noted, the wife of the detenu is the petitioner. 3.Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, learned counsel on record for petitioner is before us. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 506(ii) and 109 of 'the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of brevity] and altered into Sections 147, 148, 302, 506(ii), 109 of IPC r/w. Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of 'the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act No.33 of 1989)' [hereinafter 'SC & ST (PoA) Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience] in Crime No.1034 of 2023 on the file of Palayamkottai Police Station.
4.The aforementioned impugned preventive detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers
and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
5.The impugned preventive detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that the respondents have not furnished the booklet containing all the supporting documents within 5 days as stipulated under Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982, despite repeated requests.
6.Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four [4] weeks. 7.Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.' 2.As the aforementioned Admission Board order captures all essentials ie., essentials imperative for appreciating this final order we refrain from setting out the facts again. Suffice to say that the aforementioned Admission Board order dated 03.11.2023 shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this final order. This also means that the short forms, abbreviations and short references used in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant final order also for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3.Mr.A.Mohamed Hashim, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.S.Ravi, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
4.The ground case which constitutes sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.1034 of 2023 on the file of Palayamkottai Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 506(ii) and 109 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] which was subsequently altered into Sections 147, 148, 302, 506(ii) and 109 of IPC r/w. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of 'The Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989' [hereinafter 'SC/ST (PoA) Act' for the sake of convenience]. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case. 5.Though several points have been raised in the support affidavit, Mr.A.
Mohamed Hashim, learned Counsel on record for the HCP petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point in the final hearing board and this one point turns on Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982. 6.Learned Counsel drew our attention to the impugned preventive detention order dated 25.09.
same has been duly served on the detenu on the next day by 10.50 a.m. ie., on 26.09.2023 at 10.50 a.m. The detention order together with the rubber stamp is as follows:
7.Thereafter, learned Counsel placed before us the grounds booklet served on the detenu and pointed out that the grounds booklet has been served on the detenu only on 15.10.2023 and for an illustration the last page of the index is as follows:
8.The aforementioned records would demonstrate that there is a direct and clear breach of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 is learned Counsel's say.
9.As the matter turns heavily on records, learned Prosecutor really does not have much of a say.
10.In this view of the matter it will suffice to say that the aforementioned point is directly and squarely covered in all say by an order made by this Division Bench in Vasanthi's case [Vasanthi Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others] reported in 2023:MHC:4028 [Neutral Citation of Madras High Court].
11.Following Vasanthi's case principle, we have no hesitation in dislodging the impugned preventive detention order in the captioned matter in the habeas legal drill on hand. 12.Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 25.09.2023 bearing reference
No.40/BCDFGISSSV/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Vigneshwar alias Vikki, male, aged 27 years, son of Murugan, 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.] 04.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No MR Post Script: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. All concerned are 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 Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Commissioner of Police, (Tirunelveli Range), O/o. Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.
3.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli City.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli City.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
MR ORDER MADE IN H.C.P.(MD)No.1330 of 2023 04.12.2023