BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/04/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.MALA H.C.P.(MD) No.932 of 2008 K.Aathilakshmi .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 9. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of detention under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) dated 29.8.2008 in No.70/BDFGISSV/2008 passed by the 1st respondent and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu viz., Karthikeyan @ Billa Karthik, S/o.Chinnasamy Thevar detained at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and to set him at liberty. !For petitioner ... Mr.A.Abdul Kadhar ^For respondents... Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan Addl.Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J)
This Writ Application challenges the order of the first respondent made in
No.70/BDFGISSV/2008 dated 29.8.2008 whereby the husband of the petitioner was
ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act,
1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) terming him as a “Goonda”.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in six adverse
cases as stated in the order of detention. Apart from that, he was involved in
one ground case in Crime No.371/2008 under Sections 392 r/w 397, 506(ii) of the
IPC registered by B-4 Keeraithurai P.S.,. Pursuant to the recommendation made
by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in six adverse cases
and one ground case, after scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining
authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu
were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that he should be
detained as a “Goonda” and accordingly, made the order of detention, which is
the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his sincere attempt of
assailing the order brought to the notice of the Court, the following three
grounds:-
(i) The detenu had not filed any bail application in respect of the ground
case in Crime No.371/2008 registered by B-4 Keeraithurai P.S. and the detenu was
arrested on 22.7.2008 but the detaining authority has pointed out in its order
that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the above
cases, since in similar cases bail are granted by the concerned Court or higher
Courts. This observation was made without any material or basis whatsoever and
such observation is premature.
(ii) A representation was made by the detenu on 8.9.2008. After
consideration of the representation, two rejection orders came to be passed and
were served upon the detenu.
(iii) Added further the learned counsel that in the course of the Order
dated 29.8.2008, it is mentioned that Crime Nos. 309/2006, 320/2006, 321/2006,
327/2006 and 328/2006 had taken place in the year 2006 but actually, the ground
case was taken place in the year 2008. Thus, a discrepancy was found. Under
the circumstances, no explanation was forthcoming.
5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
6. Admittedly, no bail application was filed by the detenu in the ground
case in Crime No.371/2008 registered by B-4Keeraithurai P.S. and the detenu was
arrested on 22.7.2008. While the matter stood thus, the detaining authority has
pointed out in its order that there was real possibility of the detenu coming
out on bail in the above cases, since in similar cases bail are granted by the
concerned Court or higher Courts. This observation was made without any
material or basis whatsoever and such observation is premature.
7. Further, concededly, there was only one representation made by the
detenu on 8.9.2008. It is brought to the notice of the Court that two rejection
orders were served on the detenu i.e. on 29.9.2008 and another rejection order
dated 24.10.2008. Under the circumstances, the detaining authority was not
appraised of the circumstances that two rejection orders came to be passed.
8. Apart from that, all the crimes were alleged to have bee committed in
the year 2006 and only the ground case is alleged to have been committed in the
year 2008.
9. In the absence of convincing and acceptable reasons for the grounds
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of detention has got
to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The detenu
is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection
with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
asvm
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai – 9.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.