IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.08.2006 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMAR H.C.P.No.527 of 2006 M.Panaiyadian .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli District. 2.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 3.The Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Circle. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondent to produce the body of the detenue viz., Vijayalakshmi, wife of Panaiyadian before the Court who is now detained in Special Prison for Women, Trichy, in pursuant to the detention order passed by the first respondent in Cr.M.P.No.44 of 2006 dated 24.04.2006 to call for the records and quash the same and set the detenue at liberty. For Petitioner .. Mr.N.Mohideen Basha For Respondents .. Mr.M.Babu Muthumeeran, Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner, who is the husband of the detenue, by name Vijayalakshmi, who is detained as a ”Boot-legger” as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 24.04.2006, challenges the same in this Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detention order was passed on 24.04.2006, a representation was sent to the detaining authority on 28.04.2006 which was received by him on 02.05.2006. However, the same was not considered by him. Hence, the detention order is liable to be interfered.
4. With regard to the said contention, the District Collector/District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli in his counter affidavit, particularly in para 4, has stated that the representation dated 28.04.2006 was examined with reference to the materials available and rejected in his office ref.No.Cr.M.P.No.44/2006 (D3) dated 03.05.2006 and the order was served on the detenue and to the petitioner on 04.05.2006. In view of the said information, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the copy of the telegram said to have been sent to the father of the detenue regarding her arrest was not supplied to the detenue. It is not in dispute that the arrest memo which is available at page 43 of the booklet supplied to the detenue shows that the detenue was arrested at 14 hours on 17.03.2006 and her arrest was intimated to her father by name Subramanian through a telegram. Inasmuch as her arrest was intimated to one of her family members, which is not in dispute, we are of the view that production of a copy of the telegram is not warranted. When the arrest of the detenue was intimated to one of the family members within the prescribed period, there cannot be any further complaint. Accordingly, we are unable to accept the said contention.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a copy of the complaint was not furnished to the detenue.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to our notice that the complaint given by one Sukumar extracted in the first information report, which is available at page 34 to 36 and a copy of the same has been furnished to the detenue. A perusal of the relevant materials show that all the details regarding the complaint have been furnished to the detenue along with the grounds of detention. Hence, there is no force in the claim made by the petitioner.
8. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents which are available at page 44 and 45 are not legible and readable. We verified those documents. No doubt, it appears to be blurred. However, the relevant and required details are readable and available in those documents. In such circumstances, in the absence of any prejudice shown by the detenue, the detention order cannot be faulted with.
9. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
mmi
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Prohibition and Excise,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The District Magistrate and District
Collector, Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Lalgudi Circle.
4.The Superintendent,
Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli.
(in duplicate for communication to the detenue)
5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
[VSANT 7715]