BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22/03/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR H.C.P.(MD) No.47 of 2007 N.Vijaya .. Petitioner vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Collector cum District Magistrate Theni District .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records connected with the order of the second respondent in D.O.No.3 of 2006 dated 24.8.2006 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's son by name Pandiyan @ Alex Pandian, son of Nagaraj, aged about 26 years, now confined in Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. !For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy ^For Respondents : Mr.Daniel Manoharan Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
The petitioner one Vijaya, the mother of the detenu Pandian @ Alex
Pandian, against whom an order was passed by the detaining authority, the second
respondent herein, on 24.8.2006, terming him as a Goonda on the strength of the
recommendation made by the sponsoring authority wherein it is stated that there
are five cases pending against him, one ground case and four adverse cases, has
brought forth this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
2.The Court perused the order under challenge and heard the learned
Counsel for the petitioner.
3.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order suffers
on two grounds.
(i) There was a delay noticed. When the representation was made, remarks
were called for on 9.10.2006; but, the remarks were received only on 19.10.2006,
and thus, there was a delay of nearly 20 days noticed.
(ii) The grounds of detention are in two parts, one in Tamil version and
the other is exactly in English version. The detaining authority has signed and
affixed his seal in the English version and not in the Tamil version. Thus, the
detenu was unable to understand the contents of the same, and it has caused
prejudice to him. On these grounds, the order of detention has got to be set
aside.
4.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
contentions.
5.After looking into the proforma placed in the hands of this Court by the
State, this Court is of the considered opinion that no delay is noticed. The
delay is only 9 days, out of which 4 days are holidays, and the remaining is
only 5 days, which can be taken as administrative delay. Thus, the delay cannot
be said to be unreasonable.
6.As far as the second ground is concerned, this Court has to necessarily
agree with the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
In the instant case, as could be seen from the grounds of detention, the first
one is in English language and the second one is in Tamil language. As regards
the English language, the detaining authority has signed and affixed his seal.
So far as the Tamil version is concerned, neither the detaining authority put
his signature nor affixed the seal. Once it is served upon the detenu, he must
be able to understand the contents of the same. The purpose for which it is
being given to the detenu in Tamil version is to enable him to understand the
contents. But, in the instant case, that opportunity was thoroughly taken away.
In such circumstances, once the signature of the detaining authority is not put
and the seal is also not affixed in the Tamil version, there is no question of
any authenticity of the document. That apart, it cannot be, in the eye of law,
taken to be an order of detention. This Court is of the view that it has caused
prejudice to the interest of the detenu, and hence, it has got to be set aside.
7.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the
order of the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector cum
District Magistrate, Theni District
3.The Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court