IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:- 13.09.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
H.C.P. No.834 of 2010
Mallika ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Madras 600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai. ` ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in P.D.O. No.9/2010 dated 19.4.2010 in detaining the detenu under 2(F) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Bala @ Balamurugan, son of Arumuga Asari, aged about 23 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr. O.S. Thilak Pasumbadiyar
For Respondents : Mr. Babu Muthumeeran, Addl. P.P.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)
This petition is brought forth by the wife of the detenu challenging the order passed by the second respondent in P.D.O. No.9/2010 dated 19.4.2010, whereby Bala @ Balamurugan was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in five adverse cases viz. (i) Avudaiyarkoil Police Station Crime No.27 of 2010 for the offence under Section 379 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Avudaiyarkoil Police Station Cr.No.28/2010 for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii)Avudaiyarkoil Police Station Cr.No.29/2010 for the offence under Section 379 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Thanjavur District Thiruchitrambalam Police Station Cr.No.44/2010 for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code; (v) Thanjavur District Thiruchitrambalam Police Station Cr.No.60/2010 for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and the ground case in Crime No.179 of 2010 registered by Aranthangi Police station for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 18.3.2010 and the detenu was arrested on 19.3.2010, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, though the representation was made on 30.4.2010, there was not even an intimation to the detenu whether the same was considered and orders were passed thereon, which would vitiate the detention order.
5. Learned counsel added further that though the detenu was arrested on 19.3.2010 and remanded to judicial custody on the very day, a copy of the remand order was not served upon the detenu. Needless to say that remand order is the relied upon document. If to be so, a copy of the same should have been served upon the detenu, but not done so. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside.
6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to five adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
8. It is not in controversy that the detenu was arrested in the ground case in Crime No.179 of 2010 registered by Aranthangi Police Station on 19.3.2010 and remanded to judicial custody on the very day. But the copy of the remand order was not served upon the detenu. In a given case like the remand order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate on production of the detenu before the Court is a relied upon document and copy of such document should have been served on the detenu. Admittedly, in the instant case, it was not served on the detenu, which would be evident from the detention order.
9. Apart from this, admittedly a representation was made on 30.4.2010. As could be seen from the available materials, the same was disposed of by the State only on 28.7.2010 and the same was communicated on 30.7.2010. It would be evident that there was a delay of three months time, but the State is unable to explain as to how such inordinate delay of three months in disposing of the representation has taken place. In the absence of any acceptable and convincing explanation for the delay so occasioned, the Court is of the considered opinion that ground is also available to the petitioner. On these two grounds, the order of detention has got to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in P.D.O. No.9/2010 dated 19.4.2010. The detenu, namely, Bala @ Balamurugan, who is now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.
ssa.
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Madras 600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Pudukottai District,
Pudukottai