BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30/09/2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
H.C.P.(MD) No.516 of 2009
V.MARUTHATHAL [ PETITIONER ]
Vs
1 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT
FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI - 9
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT,
TIRUNELVELI
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON,
PALAYAMKOTTAI [ RESPONDENTS ]
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India calling for the entire records in the detention order passed in Detention
Order No.M.H.S.Confdl.No.68/2009 dated 02.06.2009 on the file of the second
respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents
to produce the body of the petitioner's husband namely Vellaichamy @
Vellaipandi, S/o. Marappan before this Court and set him at liberty from Central
Prison, Palayamkottai.
!For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Ravi
^For Respondents... Mr.N.Senthur Pandian,
Addl.Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
P.MURGESEN, J.)
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who was detained under Section
3(1) of 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), by order
of the second respondent in M.H.S. Confdl.No.68/2009 dated 02.06.2009, by
branding him as a ‘GOONDA’.
2. There are five adverse cases and one ground case as against the detenu.
The details of the adverse cases are as under:-
Sl. Police Station Section of Law
No. and Crime No.
1. Thiruvengadam Police 392 IPC
Station
Crime No.11 of 2009
2. Chinakovilankulam Police 392 IPC
Station
Crime No.18 of 2009
3. Malli Police Station 379 IPC
Crime No.48 of 2009
4. Sathur Town Police Station 392 IPC
Crime No.256 of 2009
5. Karivalamvanthanallur 392 IPC
Police Station
Crime No.54 of 2009
The ground case was registered under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of
the Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station in Crime No.74 of 2009. In the ground
case, the detenu was arrested on 07.05.2009 and produced before the Judicial
Magistrate, Sankarankovil and remanded to judicial custody till 05.06.2009. The
detention order was clamped on the detenu on 02.06.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of
detention passed by the second respondent is vitiated on the ground that the
pre-detention representation of the detenu was not considered by the
authorities. For this, he relied on a decision of this Court in the case of
Pushparani, A. v. The Commissioner of Police, reported in 2003 (1) CTC 616 and
argued that when the pre-detention representation was not considered, the
detention order is liable to be set aside.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
5. In paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit filed by the second
respondent, the receipt of the pre-detention representation was admitted. On a
thorough scanning of the Detention Order, it is clear that the pre-detention
representation of the detenu was not considered at the time of passing of
grounds of detention, even though it is claimed that the said pre-detention
representation was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District.
Having tested the present case in the light of the decision of this Court relied
on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in 2003 (1) CTC 616, we are of the
considered view that the order of detention passed by the second respondent is
vitiated, on the ground that the Detaining Authority had failed to consider the
pre-detention representation of the detenu.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
and the order of detention in Order No.M.H.S.Confdl.No.68 of 2009 dated 2.6.2009
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.
KM
To
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT
FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI - 9
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT,
TIRUNELVELI
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON,
PALAYAMKOTTAI