IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.1.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVA KUMAR
H.C.P.No.1738 of 2007
Rani .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Magistrate and
District Collector
Salem District.
2. Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison
Salem. .. Respondents
-----
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.
-----
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajan
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango
Addl. Public Prosecutor
-----
O R D E R
(Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)
The petitioner, wife of the detenu Velu, who has been clamped with an order of detention by the first respondent, on arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Bootlegger and has to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), seeks to call for the records relating to the order of detention dated 22.11.2007 made in C.M.P.No.11/B.L.A./C2/2007, to quash the same and the produce the detenu, who is now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.
2. On the basis of the complaint given by one Kolandaipayyan on 30.10.2007 at 16.30 hours, that after he consumed the illicit arrack bought from the detenu at 13.00 hours, he felt burning sensation in his throat and stomach and after some time, he felt giddiness, blurred eyes and vomited twice, a case was registered in Crime No.685 of 2007 on the file of Attur Prohibition Enforcement Wing, for an alleged commission of offences under Sections 4(1)(i) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The chemical analysis report of the samples taken from the arrack seized from the detenu disclosed that the arrack contained atropine of 6.9 mgms per 100 ml.
3. The first respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and finding that there are three adverse cases, viz. crime No.102/2007 on the file of Attur Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offence under Section 4(1)(aa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Crime Nos.653/2007 and 802/2007 on the file of Attur Police Station for the offence under Sections 4(1)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act read with 328, IPC and Section 4(1)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act respectively, and having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public health and public order, passed the impugned order.
3. Heard both sides. We have perused the materials produced before us.
4. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority, having stated that the pre-detention representation sent by the petitioner was properly considered and rejected, had not chosen to furnish the same to the detenu in the material papers supplied along with the grounds of detention, depriving the the right of the detenu to submit his effective representation and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated.
5. Concededly, in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the pre-detention representation sent by the petitioner before passing the impugned order of detention was received on 6.11.2007 and the same was properly considered and rejected. However, a copy of the said order of rejection was not served on the detenu in the material papers supplied to him along with the grounds of detention. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the detenu has been deprived of his right of making effective representation challenging the impugned order of detention and the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and accordingly, the same is quashed. This petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other crime. No costs.
kpl
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector
Salem District.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison
Salem.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Madras.