IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 07/03/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1182 of 2005
Mangathai ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State Rep. by its
Secretary to Government,
Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate
and District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the second
respondent in proceedings D.O.No.45/2005-C2 dated 3.10.2005, set aside the
same, direct the respondents to produce detenu Sekar, S/o.Raj Gounder, now
confined in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.K.Manikandan
For Respondents : Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam,
Government Advocate.
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated
03.10.2005, detaining her husband by name Sekar as ‘Bootlegger’ as
contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by
taking us through paragraph No.3(e) of the grounds of detention and pointing
out that a reference has been made therein that Dr.S. Jayaprakash had given
treatment to one Sekar and Vadivel (complainant), contended that though the
Detaining Authority has relied on the statement of the said Sekar, the same
has not been furnished to the detenu. He also contended that a reading of the
said Paragraph gives lot of confusion and in the absence of clarification and
failure to supply copy of the statement of Sekar, the ultimate order passed by
the Detaining Authority is vitiated.
4. We verified the relevant clause, viz., para No.3(a) of the grounds
of detention as well as the statement of Dr.S.Jayaprakash, who treated several
persons including Sekar and Vadivel. As rightly pointed out, though the
Detaining Authority has relied upon the statement of Sekar to whom treatment
was given by Dr.Jayaprakash, copy of such statement was not supplied to the
detenu. In view of the fact that statement of Sekar was relied on by the
detaining Authority while passing the order of detention and copy of such
statement having not been supplied to the detenu, we are of the view that the
detention order is vitiated.
5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or
cause.
JI.
To
1. Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Vellore.
(In duplicate for
communication to the detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.