IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 9.1.2008
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1712 of 2007
Dhanalakshmi .. Petitioner
Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector
Villupuram District
Villupuram. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Devaraj
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango
Addl. Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)
The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Pazhani, son of Mannangkatti, who was incarcerated by order dated 30.10.2007 of the second respondent 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) branding him as a Bootlegger, has preferred this writ petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 30.10.2007 in Memo.No.C2/47886/2007 against the petitioner’s husband, Pazhani, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
2.1. On 11.10.2007, the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Prohibition Enforcement Wing along with police party conducted prohibition raid at V.Pagandai village. At that time, the detenu was found pouring some liquid into a tumbler from a plastic can and giving it to a person standing in front of him and also receiving money from that person. On seeing the police people, the person who drank it ran away. The detenu also tried to escape from that place, but he got caught by the police. One while colour plastic can containing 4 litres of arrack and two lorry tubes each containing 60 litres of country arrack were recovered. The detenu was arrested and a case was registered in Crime No.1476 of 2007 under Section 4(1)(i)(i), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Samples of country arrack were taken and were sent for chemical analysis, which disclosed that the arrack was mixed with atropine of 2.89 mg% W/V.
2.2. The second respondent, taking note of this case as a ground case and finding that there are three adverse cases in Crime Nos.199 and 445 of 2007 on the file of Vikiravandi Police Station and Crime No.790 of 2007 on the file of Villupuram Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offence punishable under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Bootlegger.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention on the ground of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, as the detaining authority had not taken note of the fact that the specific plea raised by the petitioner in her representation dated 16.11.2007 that the detenu was taken by the police on 10.10.2007 and not on 11.10.2007, as mentioned in the detention order, was not considered in the rejection order dated 18.12.2007.
4. We have perused the entire materials placed before us. Even though in the grounds of detention, it was stated that the detenu was arrested on 11.10.2007 with respect to the ground case, in the representation of the petitioner dated 16.11.2007, she had specifically stated that the detenu was taken on 10.10.2007 by the police of Villupuram Prohibition Enforcement Wing and was kept under their custody till 11.10.2007 and thereafter, a false case was foisted against him. However, the second respondent, while passing the order of rejection dated 18.12.2007 rejecting the representation of the petitioner, had not considered the contention raised by the petitioner as to the arrest of the detenu.
5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the detaining authority had not taken note of the above fact, which shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Accordingly, the order of detention dated 30.10.2007 is vitiated and the same is set aside. The detenu Pazhani is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
ATR
To:
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector
Villupuram District
Villupuram.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Madras.