IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17/04/2006
C O R A M
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K.SAMPATH KUMAR
H.C.P.NO.41 of 2006
E.Manoharan .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector and District
Magistrate, Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records
relating to the detention order No.B.D.F.G.I.S-V.No.53 of 2005, dated
12.11.2005 passed by the second respondent and set aside the same and direct
the respondents to produce the body of the detenue, by name, Tmt.Indhira,
W/o.Ranganathan, aged about 35 years, who is now confined in Special Prison
for Women, Vellore before this Court and set her at liberty forthwith and pass
such further orders.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.S.Thahir
^For Respondents : Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathinam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
:O R D E R
(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner, the uncle of the detenue, by name, Tmt.Indhira, who
was detained as a “Bootlegger” under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act
14 of 1982) by the impugned order, dated 12.11.2005, challenges the same in
this petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing
our attention to the fact that the detaining authority, though relied on the
bail application in Crl.M.P.No.13924 of 2005, which was dismissed by the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu on 07.11.2005, the
translated copies of the same were not supplied to the detenu, which vitiates
the order of detention. It is the case of the petitioner that she knows only
Tamil.
4. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority having relied upon the
bail application and the order of dismissal while considering the imminent
possibility of the detenue coming out on bail, it is but proper to supply the
translated copies to the detenue and failure to do the same, vitiates the
detention order. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to
be quashed and accordingly it is quashed.
5. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detenue is directed
to be set at liberty forthwith from custody, unless she is required in
connection with any other case.
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector and District
Magistrate, Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Superintendent,
Special Prison for Women, Vellore
(in duplicate for communication to
detenu).
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.