Madras High Court
Muthupandi vs State Represented By on 20 November, 2012
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/11/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD).No.1097 of 2012 Muthupandi ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State represented by The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. ... Respondents Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records from the first respondent in M.H.S.Confdl No.72/2012 dated 14.08.2012 by setting aside the said order of detention passed by the first respondent and setting the detenu Vellapandi Thevar, aged about 48 years, S/o.Parathesi Thevar at liberty now detained in the Central prison, Palayamkottai. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu ^For Respondents ... Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor ******* :ORDER
*********** [Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN, J] The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, Vellapandi Thevar, son of Parathesi Thevar, who has been detained, under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short 'Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982'), pursuant to the order passed by the first respondent, in his proceedings, in M.H.S.Confdl No.72 of 2012, dated 14.08.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the first respondent, dated 14.08.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai. The present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed before this Court, challenging the detention order of the first respondent, dated 14.08.2012.
2. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that there were no materials available before the Detaining Authority to arrive at such a conclusion. As such, the Detaining Authority had arrived at the conclusion, without proper application of mind.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the Detaining Authority concerned had stated, in the grounds of detention, that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as an order had been passed, in a similar case, wherein bail had been granted. However, the relevant papers relating to the said case, stated to be similar in nature, had not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, the impugned detention order passed against the detenu is arbitrary, illegal and void, as held in Rekha Vs.State of Tamil Nadu, (2011 (5) SCC 244) and in a recent decision, in Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur, reported in (2012) 3 MLJ (Crl) 794 (SC).
4. The learned counsel had pointed out that the Detaining Authority concerned had mentioned about the similar case, in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention. The relevant paragraph of the grounds of detention reads as follows:-
"6. I am aware that Thiru.Vellapandi Thevar filed a bail petition before the Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in CRMP.No.3215/2012 in Munneerpallam Police Station Crime Number 314/2012 and the petition was dismissed on 14.08.2012.I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for the above case since in similar case bails are granted by the concerned court or higher courts. I am also aware that in similar case bail has been granted in CRMP.No.3240/2012 on 08.08.2012 by the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. I am aware that he is in remand in Munneerpallam Police Station crime number 316/2012 and in this case he filed a bail petition before the Judicial Magistrate No-v, Tirunelveli in CRMP.No.2679/2012 and the bail was granted to him on 13.08.2012. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities in future, which will be pre-judicial to the maintenance of the public order and public health. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and public health. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that Thiru.Vellapandi Thevar is a "Sand Offender" and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982."
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that, in view of the fact that an order had been passed, in a similar case, granting bail, as stated by the Detaining Authority, in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
6. In the present case, from the records available before this Court, it is noted that none of the relevant papers relating to the similar case, mentioned by the Detaining Authority, had been furnished to the detenu, except a copy of the bail order said to have been passed by the Court concerned. Hence, the impugned order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority is liable to be set aside.
7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusion of the Detaining Authority that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order cannot be sustained, as it is not based on all the relevant and necessary materials. Further, there has been no proper application of mind, by the Detaining Authority, before arriving at such a conclusion. As such, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the impugned detention order. Accordingly, the impugned Detention Order, passed by the first respondent, dated 14.08.2012, is quashed, and the Habeas Corpus petition stands allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.
ssl/ssm To
1. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.