Supreme Court - Daily Orders
R Tamilarasi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Secretary To The ... on 17 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025
(@ SLP (CRL.) NOS. 16270-16271/2024)
R. TAMILARASI APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT
& ORS. RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Under challenge in these appeals is the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the High Court by which, the application for modification of the conditions, filed by the appellant was disposed of.
4. The facts as revealed would indicate that an order of detention was passed against the appellant by the respondent No.2-The District Collector/District Magistrate, Tamil Nadu on 11.07.2024 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest- Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. The said order was challenged by the Signature Not Verified appellant before the High Court. The High Court vide Digitally signed by geeta ahuja Date: 2025.03.21 10:57:25 IST Reason: judgment and order dated 20.09.2024 quashed the detention order, but at the same time, imposed certain 1 conditions/issued directions which were considered to be onerous by the appellant.
5. Accordingly, the appellant moved an application for modification of the conditions/directions so imposed. The said application has not only been rejected by the impugned order, but the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the High Court as a whole has been recalled; meaning thereby, that the detention order has been revived.
6. The submission of Dr. S Muralidhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that on a modification application moved before the High Court, the Court could not have recalled the entire order by which the detention order has been quashed. The Court could have either modified the conditions or could have rejected the modification application.
7. We are in agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel. The High Court was only seized with the application for modification of the conditions imposed under order dated 20.09.2024. The High Court while deciding such an application could not have recalled the entire order by which the detention of the appellant was quashed.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in recalling the order dated 20.09.2024.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 is hereby set aside and the order dated 20.09.2024 passed by 2 the High Court stands revived. The appellant shall appear before the appropriate police station as directed therein or according to the order if any passed subsequently by the High Court.
10. The appeals are allowed on the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.......................J. (PANKAJ MITHAL) .......................J. (S.V.N. BHATTI) NEW DELHI 17th MARCH, 2025 GA 3 ITEM NO.57 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 16270- 16271/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-09-2024 in HCP No. 1716/2024 18-11-2024 in CRLMP No. 16060/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras] R. TAMILARASI PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) (IA No. 269663/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 269664/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 17-03-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI For Petitioner(s) :Dr. S Muralidhar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Thamaraiselvan, Adv. Mr. Ajith Wiliiyam S, Adv. Mr. B. Karunakaran, AOR For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv.
Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Nidhi Mathur) (Geeta Ahuja) Court Master (NSH) Assistant Registrar-cum-PS
(Signed Order is placed on the file) 4