BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28/09/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA HCP (MD)No.230 of 2006 Apsara alias Amudha .. Petitioner Versus 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai -9. 2.The District Magistrate & District Collector, Karur District. Karur ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 21.11.2005 passed by the second respondent vide Cr.M.P.No.13/05 and quash the same and produce the body of the detenu Agastin S/o. Amalraj, before the Honourable Court and set him at liberty from Central Prison, Trichy forthwith. !For Petitioner ... Mr.M.Kumar ^For Respondents ... Mr.S.P.Samuel Raj Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.K.MISRA, J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
2. By previous order dated 21.09.2006, it was indicated that in the
grounds of detention reference has been made to the alleged commission of
robbery, whereas the First Information Report relating to the ground case or the
previous case do not indicate any offence of robbery. The detaining authority
was called upon to explain this serious mistake which was reflected in the order
of detention. However, the detaining authority has not appeared, nor any
affidavit has been filed clarifying the position.
3. The order of preventive detention is always based on the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority and the High Court is not authorised to
substitute its own view for the view of the detaining authority. In the present
case, in the grounds of detention, it has been indicated as if the detenu was
guilty of committing the crime of robbery, eventhough the documents do not
support such a conclusion. This would show that there is non-application of
mind on the part of the detaining authority.
4. In such view of the matter, we are constrained to quash the order of
detention. The detenu shall be released forthwith unless his presence is
required in connection with any other case.
5. The habeas corpus petition is accordingly allowed.
ksr
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamilnadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort. St.George, Chennai -9.
2.The District Magistrate &
District Collector,
Karur District.
Karur
3.The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.