IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 18/03/2004
Coram
Honourable Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
Honourable Mr.Justice S.R.SINGHARAVELU
Habeas Corpus Petition Nos.1890 of 2003
Chandira ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the
Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George, Chennai.9.
2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Vellore District, Vellore. .. Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling
for the records of the 2nd respondent dated 7.8.2003 in
Ref.No.C3.D.O.No.73/2003 in detaining the detenu Devan under Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a "bootlegger" and quash the same and direct
the respondents to produce the said detenu Devan detained in Central
Prison, Vellore before this Court and set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Kannaiyan
^For Respondents : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:O R D E R
(Order of the court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The wife of the detenu is the petitioner herein. The
petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 7.8.2003 passed by
the second respondent detaining her husband Devan as a bootlegger as
contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. Even at the foremost, the learned counsel for the
petitioner after taking us through the grounds of detention and the
order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore dated 4.8.2003 passed
in Crl.M.P.No.7 509/2003 would contend that the impugned order of
detention is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of
mind by the Detaining Authority. It is seen that while dismissing the
bail application on 4.8.2003 in Crl.M.P.No.7509/2003 a statement was
made before the said Court that “The petitioner is likely to be
detained under B.L. Act” ( Act 14/1982). Admittedly, the detention
order was passed on 7.8.2003. As rightly argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner a doubt was, therefore, liable to be
raised, as to whether there was already a plan to detain the detenu
and the su bsequent decision was merely a mechanical confirmation of
that plan. Admittedly, there is no affidavit by the Sponsoring
Authority with reference to the decision. It is clear from the
language of the grounds that the order of the Principal Sessions
Judge, Vellore in the bail application was a relied upon document. It
was specifically put to the Detaining Authority, read by him and also
supplied to the detenu. As argued, the Detaining Authority was duty
bound to take this particular portion into consideration and dispel by
holding that his decision to clamp detention order was made
independently of any other thing and only on the materials supplied to
him, after the affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority filed before him.
Admittedly, that is not to be found anywhere in the order.
Accordingly, it is clear that the Detaining Authority has failed to
take into consideration the very substantial portion of the relied
upon document and has not applied his mind. The learned counsel for
the petitioner has also brought to our notice that in similar
circumstance, a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.232/2003
dated 14.10.2003 quashed the similar detention order and allowed the
petition.
4. In the light of what is stated above, the order of
detention dated 7.8.2003 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention
dated 7.8.200 3 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with
any other case or cause.
Index : Yes
Website: Yes
vbs
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George, Chennai.9.
2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Vellore District, Vellore.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,Vellore
4. The Joint Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai.9.
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.