Madras High Court
R.Mariammal vs The State Rep. By on 24 April, 2009
Bench: M.Chockalingam, R.Mala
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24/04/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.MALA H.C.P.(MD) No.933 of 2008 R.Mariammal W/o.Ramesh @ Pookadai Ramesh ..Petitioner vs. 1.The State rep. by District Magistrate and District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort Saint George,Chennai - 9. ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records from the first respondent in M.H.S.No.70 of 2008 dated 28.4.2008 setting aside the order of detention passed by the first respondent and setting the detenu Ramesh @ Pookadai Ramesh at liberty. He is detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai. !For petitioner ... Mr.R.Ramasamy ^For respondents ... Mr.Daniel Manoharan Addl.Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) This Writ Application challenges the order of the first respondent made in M.H.S.No.70 of 2008 dated 28.4.2008 whereby the husband of the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the provisions 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 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Goonda".
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.
3. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases viz., Crime No.460/2007 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307, 302 altered to Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 and 120(b) of the IPC registered by Tenkasi Police Station; Crime No.382/2007 under Sections 353 and 506(ii) of the IPC registered by the same police; and in one ground case in Crime No.395/2008 under Sections 3, 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act and 506(ii) of the IPC registered by Tenkasi Police Station, after looking into the materials, the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that he should be detained as a "Goonda" and accordingly, made the order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Assailing the order of detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court the following grounds:-
(i) Firstly, the second adverse case in Crime No.382/2007 was registered by Tenkasi Police Station but in the course of the order, the crime number was shown as if it was 382/2008. Thus, it is quite clear that the year of crime number was found to be incorrect. The detaining authority should have called for a clarification in this respect but not done so.
(ii) Insofar as the ground case was concerned, bail application in CRMP No.1412/2008 was filed before the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and the same was pending disposal. But the detaining authority has stated in its order that the detenu was very likely to come out on bail in that case. Under the circumstances, it is prejudging the situation where bail could be granted or refused. Such an observation was made without any material or basis whatsoever.
It was only an apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority and mere apprehension would not be sufficient to pass an order of detention.
5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
6. Admittedly, the second adverse case was registered by Tenkasi Police Station in Crime No.382/2007 but, it is found in the order as if it was Crime No.382/2008. The contention put-forth by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that it was a typographical error, cannot be accepted. When such a material discrepancy was found, the detaining authority should have called for a clarification but not done so. It was actually non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.
7. Insofar as the second ground raised, it has to be accepted that when the bail application was pending in the ground case at the time of passing the detention order, making an observation that the detenu was likely to come out on bail is nothing but prejudging the situation where bail could be granted or refused. It is only an apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority. Hence, on this ground also, the order of detention has got to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
asvm To
1.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai
5.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai - 9