Madras High Court
Suguna vs The Secretary To Government on 15 June, 2016
Author: V.Bharathidasan
Bench: V.Bharathidasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.06.2016 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN H.C.P.No.424 of 2016 Suguna .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore 632 009. .. Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the second respondent herein dated 23.02.2016 made in C3/D.O.No.12/2016 against the detenu Thiru Appa @ Rajendran, Male aged 26 years, S/o.Shanmugam, who is now detained in Central Prison, Vellore, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vijayakumar For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Thiru Appa @ Rajendran, S/o.Shanmugam, Male aged 26 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 23.02.2016, against her husband branding him as a Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2.Though, many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind, on the part of the detaining authority, in passing the order of detention.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, certain pages in the booklet, furnished to the detenu, is illegible and could not be read at all. These illegible copies, would deprive the detenu of making effective representation, to the authorities, against the order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated, on these grounds and the same is liable to be quashed.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that, the order of detention has been passed, on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with, at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition, does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.
6.A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu, would show that the copies of documents referred and relied upon and referred to by the Detaining Authority, in particular, certain pages are illegible and are totally unreadable. This has resulted in the detenu being deprived of making an effective representation. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
7.It is a trite law that, personal liberty protected under Article 21, is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that, it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal.
8.In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground.
9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in No.C3/D.O.No.12/2016 dated 23.02.2016 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
[S.N.J.] [V.B.D.J.,]
15.06.2016
kua
Index: Yes/No
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector-cum-District Magistrate,
Vellore District,
Vellore 632 009.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
AND
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
kua
H.C.P.No.424 of 2016
15.06.2016