A.Madasamy v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.07.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.(MD)No.2107 of 2022 A.Madasamy .. Petitioner/Father of the Detenu Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

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

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

.. 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 passed in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.235 of 2022 dated

11.11.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Senthilnathan, aged about 37 years, S/o.Madasamy, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Senthilnathan, S/o.Madasamy, aged about 37 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.235/2022 dated 11.11.2022 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the copy of the initial remand order has not been furnished to the detenu, despite the same has been sought for by the petitioner in his representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. It is further submitted that investigation has been completed in this case and final report has been filed in S.C.No.164 of 2023 and the same is pending before the II Additional District Court, Thoothukudi.

5. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially, the representation made by the petitioner dated 19.12.2022, he had sought for the initial remand order, however, the same has not been furnished to the detenu, which vitiates the order of detention.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in H.S.(M) Confdl.No.235/2022 dated 11.11.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Senthilnathan, S/o.Madasamy, 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.) (M.N.K.,J.) 19.07.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Lm/mbi

To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

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

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St.George, Chennai.

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

M.S.RAMESH,J.

and M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

Lm/mbi H.C.P.(MD)No.2107 of 2022 19.07.2023