IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18/11/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.MASILAMANI
H.C.P.No.920 of 2003
M.Perumal .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Prohibition & Excise Department,
Chennai-9.
2. The District Magistrate and District
Collector,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and quash order of detention made in
No.D.O.33/2003-C2 dated 23.4.2003.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.S.Thahir
^For respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian
Govt.Advocate(Crl. side)
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by T.V. MASILAMANI,J.)
The petition is filed by the uncle of the detenu challenging the
detention order passed against the detenu by the District Magistrate and
District Collector, Thiruvannamali dated 23.4.2003.
2. The second respondent passed the impugned order of detention
against the detenu treating him as a BOOTLEGGER by virtue of the powers
conferred under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootlegger, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read
with G.O.Ms.No.75, Prohibition & Excise Department dated 18.4.2003 passed
under Section 3(2) of the said Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents and
perused the records of the case.
4. Though several contentions have been raised in the grounds, the
petitioner has mainly relied upon the variation between the English version
and the Tamil version of the grounds of detention so as to fortify his
contention that he was confused of such variation in the grounds of detention
and therefore it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that he could not make
proper and effective representation to the respondents. In this connection,
the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to ground Nos.4
and 5 of the grounds of detention both in English and Tamil to show that the
material variation between the versions caused serious prejudice to the detenu
and he was handicapped in presenting effective and proper representation
before the concerned authorities. The relevant portion in ground No.4 in
the order of detention in English runs as follows:-
“From the above materials, I am satisfied that Thiru Ganesan is a ”
Bootlegger” Distillating and selling ID arrack mixed with poisonous substance
in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937.”
On the contrary, the Tamil version of the said ground is as follows:-
“nkny Twg;gl;ltw;wpypUe;J jpU/fnzrd; vd;gtu; xU fs;sr;rhuhaf;fhuuhf.
nghija{l;Lk; er;Rg;bghUisf; fye;j fs;sr;rhuhaj;ij 1937k; Mz;L jkpH; ehL
kJtpyf;F rl;lj;jpd; gpupt[fSf;F vjpuhd tifapy; tpw;W te;Js;shu;/”
Therefore, it is evident that in the Tamil version of the grounds of
detention, the allegation that the detenu was distilling ID arrack is not
adumbrated and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued
and in our rightly that such variation goes to the root of the matter.
5. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied on the decision VIJAY KUMAR DHARNA v. UNION OF INDIA (1990 (1) S.C.C.
606) and the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in
H.C.P.No.6 of 2000 dated 27.7.2000 in support of such contention. On a
careful consideration of the materials on record in the light of the ratio
laid down in the said decisions, we are of the considered view that in view of
the variations between the English and the Tamil versions of the documents
furnished to the detenu, he has been prejudiced and therefore, he is unable to
make effective and proper representation of his case before the respondents.
It follows necessarily that the order of detention passed by the second
respondent has to be quashed on this ground alone.
6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The
impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
dpp
To:
1. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai-9.
2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore.
(in duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.