IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03/04/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.13 of 2006
Thangam ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Magistrate and
District Collector of
Tiruvannamalai District
Tiruvannamalai.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the
detention order dated 22.11.2005 passed by the first respondent herein in his
office ref.D.O.No.56 of 2005-C2 quash the same and direct the respondents to
produce the petitioner's husband Ambika, Son of Gopal Gounder, now confined in
Central Prison, Vellore before this Court and and set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mani
^For Respondents: Mr.Abudhukumar Rajarathinam
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Ambika Son of
Gopal Gounder, who was detained as a “Bootlegger” 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 22.11.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
though the detaining authority relied on the remand extension order dated
22.11.2005, Tamil version of the said order has not been furnished. Inasmuch
as the detenu’s known language is Tamil, in the absence of copy of the remand
extension order in Tamil, the detenu was prejudiced in making effective
representation.
4.In the light of the above contention, we verified the remand
extension order dated 22.11.2005, which is available as a last document in the
paper book. It is also seen that the detaining authority has relied on the
said document while passing the order of detention. It is the specific case
of the detenu that he knows only Tamil language. It is not in dispute that
the remand extension order dated 22.11.20 05 has not been translated and
supplied to the detenu. In such circumstances, in view of the fact that the
said order has been relied upon by the detaining authority, he ought to have
furnished translated copy to the detenu, failure to same, vitiate the order of
detention. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention.
4. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or
cause.
ga
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and
District Collector of
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.