In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 19/06/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.264 of 2006
E.Muniappa .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Magistrate &
District Collector,
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its
Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George, Chennai-9. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating
to the detention order dated 24.12.2005 passed by the first respondent herein
in his office proc .No.14 of 2005, quash the same and direct the respondents
to produce the petitioner's sister's son viz., Munikrishnappa, son of
Nanjundappa, Kelamangalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District presently
undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Salem under Section 3(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,
Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video
Pirates Act, 1982 before this Court and set him at liberty.
!For petitioner : Mr. P.Mani
^For respondents : Mr. M.Babu Muthu Meeran,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)
The petitioner, who is the uncle of the detenu by name Munikrishnappa,
who was detained as a “Bootlegger” as contemplated under Section 3 (1) of the
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders,
Forest Offenders, G as, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982
(in short “Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982”) by the impugned order of detention
dated 24.12.2005, challenges the same in this petition.
2. Heard both sides.
3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner by
drawing our attention to the averments made in para 6 of the grounds of
detention, contended that inasmuch as the detenu was not informed properly
through whom he can make a repre o the Chairman, Advisory Board, Chennai-600
002 and in the absence of the said information, according to him, the
detention order is vitiated.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the
decision rendered in HCP.No.120 of 2006 dated 24.04.2006. As rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while informing the detenu that
if he wishes to make a repr tation to the District Magistrate and District
Collector or to the State Government, it should be forwarded through the
Superintendent, Central Prison; but no such information is given relating to
the representation to the Chairman, Advisory Board, Chenn ai-600 002. Though
full address has been furnished as to the Chairman, Advisory Board,
Chennai-600 002, as rightly pointed out, there is no reference through whom
the said representation is to be made to the Chairman, Advisory Board,
Chennai-600 002. In such circumstances, in the light of the defect pointed
out, we hold that the said defect has caused prejudice in making effective
representation, questioning the order of detention.
5. On this ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be
quashed; accordingly, quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
raa
To
1. The District Magistrate &
District Collector,
Krishnagiri District
Krishnagiri.
2. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.