Madras High Court
Thiagu Alias Thiagarajan vs The Deputy Inspector General on 30 September, 2005
Author: P. Sathasivam
Bench: P. Sathasivam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 30/09/2005
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
HCP(MD)No. 247 of 2005
HCP(MD)Nos. 248 and 249 of 2005
Thiagu alias Thiagarajan. .. Petitioner
in HCP No.247/2005
Willy alias Williams .. Petitioner
in HCP No.248/2005
Babu alias Saghul Hameed .. Petitioner
in HCP No.249/2005
Vs.
1. The Deputy Inspector General
of Police,
Tiruchirapalli Range and Incharge
Commissioner of Police,
Tiruchirapalli City.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Tamil Nadu Government,
Chennai-9.
.. Respondents in all H.C.Ps.
Habeas Corpus Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue Writs of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondent (i) to
produce Thiagu @ Thiagarajan, son of Ramasubbu, who is now confined in Central
Prison, Tiruchirapalli, call for records in C.P.O./T.C./D.O.No. 22/2005 dated 7-
7-2005 passed by 1st respondent; (ii) to produce Willy @ Williams, son of Albert
Xavier, who is now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, call for records
in C.P.O/T.C/D.O.No.19/2005 dated 6-7-2005 passed by 1st respondent; and (iii)
to produce Babu @ Shaghul Hameed, son of Settu @ Mohamed Sheik, who is now
confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli, call for records in
C.P.O/T.C./D.O.No. 21/2005 dated 7-7-2005 passed by 1st respondent and set aside
the same and set all the detenus at liberty.
!Mr. T. Senthilkumar: For Petitioner in all
H.C.Ps.
^Mr. P. Jothi, Addl. Public Prosecutor: For
Respondents in all HC.Ps.
:COMMON ORDER
(Order of Court was delivered by P. Sathasivam, J.,) Since the grounds raised in all the three petitions relate to detention orders which are identical, they are being disposed of by the following common order.
2. One Thiagu @ Thiagarajan, who was detained as "Goonda" under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned proceedings dated 7-7-2005 of the Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City, challenges the same in H.C.P.No. 247/2005.
3. One Willy @ Williams who was detained as Gooda under Act 14/1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 6-7-2005 of the Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City challenges the same in H.C.P.No. 248/2005.
4. One Babu @ Saghul Hameed, who was detained as Gooda under Act 14/1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 7-7-2005 of the Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City, challenges the same in H.C.P.No. 249/2005.
5. Heard Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in all cases, and Mr. P. Jothi, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.
6. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the foremost, contended that there was delay in disposal of the representations of the detenus by the Government. We have verified the particulars furnished by the learned Additional Government Pleader which show that there was no delay and the representations of the detenus dated 23-7-2005 were duly considered and rejected on 8-8-2005 without any delay.
7. According to the learned counsel for the respective petitioner, inasmuch as in all the three cases, the basis for passing the detention orders relates to a ground case which is said to have taken place on 23-5-2005, whereas the detention order under Act 14/1982 was passed only on 7-7- 2005/6-7-2005/7-7-2005 respectively. In so far as the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the said ground has not been raised in the grounds of detention; hence the respondent has no occasion to meet the above point. However, the records produced by the respondents would show that after the occurrence in the ground case i.e., on 23-5-2005, considering the antecedents of the three accused, the sponsoring authority, after getting necessary materials, forwarded the same to the detaining authority for necessary action under Act 14/1982. The detaining authority on collection of required materials and after satisfying himself and in order to maintain public peace and public order, passed the impugned order of detention on 7-7-2005, 6-7-2005 and 7-7-2005 respectively. On perusal of the particulars/materials and in the absence of specific plea in the affidavit filed in support of the above petitions, we are of the view that the impugned detention orders cannot be faulted with on the ground of delay in invoking Act 14/1982.
8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the respective petitioner is that confirmation of detention order was made by the Government on 18-7-2005 in the case of Thiyagu @ Thiyagarajan in H.C.P.No. 247/2005; and Babu @ Saghul Hameed in H.C.P.No. 249/2005; and on 17-7-2005 in the case of Willy @ Williams in H.C.P.No. 248/2005. According to the counsel, the confirmed grounds of detention was served on the detenus only on 25-7-2005. It is not in dispute that as per sub-section (3) of Section 3 of Act 14/1982, the confirmation order has to be approved by the Government within 12 days after the order of the detention. Here, in these cases, the detention orders have been passed on 7-7- 2005, 6-7-2005 and 7-7-2005 respectively and as per the above referred provision, Government have power till 19th, 18th and 19th July, 2005 respectively for confirmation of the detention order. In such circumstances, the confirmation order passed by the Government is well within the prescribed statutory period. We are also satisfied that the confirmation of grounds of detention was also duly served to the detenus within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
9. As regards some discrepancy in the English and Tamil versions regarding police custody, the Commissioner of Police in the counter affidavit, has explained that the date of police custody is 30-5-2005 and it is written by the police in the P.S.R as 30-6-2005 by oversight instead of 30-5-2005 and it does not cause any prejudice to the detenus. We also verified the relevant record. Though the date of police custody has wrongly been mentioned as 30-6- 2005 instead of 30-5-2005, as explained by the Commissioner of Police, it is only a mistake and we are satisfied that the same has not caused any prejudice to the detenus.
10. Regarding the contention relating to certain discrepancy in the date of remand and remand extension order, we verified the booklet supplied to the detenus and we are satisfied that there is no error or flaw as claimed, and in any event, it has not caused any prejudice to the detenus. Hence, the contention is liable to be rejected.
11. Regarding the claim that custody petition and order are not legible and readable, we verified the relevant portion, namely, pages 79 to 81 of the booklet which are legible to read. As rightly pointed out, the portion of the document in English provided at page 81 is a case law referred by the Judicial Magistrate, No.VI, Trichy in his order dated 30-5-2005 and it does not cause any prejudice to the detenus.
12. Regarding the contention relating to non existence of habituality and acting in the manner prejudicial to the public order warranting detention under Act 14/1982, the detaining authority has referred to and relied on the adverse cases of all the 3 detenus and the ground case which is said to have taken place on 23-5-2005. The perusal of these materials, particularly the ground occurrence on 23-5-2005, would show that the detenus and their associates committed a murder in a public place and they acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is also not in dispute that the offences committed by the detenus are punishable under Chapter XVI and XXII of Indian Penal Code as defined in Act 14/1982. For the same reason, it cannot be claimed that it is only a law and order problem and not for maintenance of public order. The narration of details in the ground case mentioned in para 3 make it clear that all the three detenus and others threatened the public who questioned them and a situation created panic among the public and nearby shop-keepers closed their shops due to fear. It also revealed that they caused the death of one Ponnusamy instantaneously in a public street in the presence of several persons, causing fear and panic in their minds. All these aspects were duly considered by the detaining authority.
13. Regarding imminent possibility, the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenus were in remand and not moved any bail application and also considering their antecedents, securing of bail in the adverse cases, though they have not filed bail application on the date of the detention order, considering the fact that in similar cases bails are being granted by the concerned Court or higher courts, after having perused all the materials and satisfying himself, passed the order of detention. The details furnished in para 4 of the grounds of detention amply show the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority to clamp the detention orders.
14. Finally, a faint argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though in the grounds of detention, a reference has been made relating to G.O.(D)No.100 Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department dated 18th April 2005 and no details furnished regarding the same, first of all, the said Government Order has nothing to do with the grounds of detention. It only enables the District Collectors to act as District Magistrates at the District level and the Commissioner of Police as detaining authority in the Cities and the said Government Order does not affect the authenticity or validity of the detention order passed, hence the said contention is also liable to be rejected.
15. In the light of our discussion, we do not find any error or infirmity or violation of the procedure in the impugned detention orders. Consequently, all the Habeas Corpus Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
To:
1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirapalli Range and Incharge Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirapalli City.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirapalli.
3. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Tamil Nadu Government, Chennai-9.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.
5. The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.