IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 17/01/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.991 of 2005
Vasantha ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu.
rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate & District
Collector, Villupuram District.
Villupuram. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the second
respondent herein concerned in C2/39411/2005, set aside the order of detention
passed therein dated 21.07.2005 against the detenu and direct the respondents
to produce the detenu by name Govindaraj S/o Arumugam before the Court and set
him at liberty, now detained in Central Prison, Cuddalore.
^For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
!For Respondents : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Govindaraj, who was
detained as ‘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 Nardu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated
21.07.2005, 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 by drawing our
attention to paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention as well as the copy of
the amendment dated 03.08.2005 received by the detenu on 05.08.2005 would
submit that inasmuch as the amendment was served to the detenu beyond the
prescribed period, the detention order cannot be sustained. With reference to
the said contention, we verified paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention. The
relevant sentence reads
as follows:
“I am therefore satisfied that an order of detention should be
passed against the said Thiru Govindaraj, Son of Arumugam under Tamil Nadu Act
14/1982 with a view …”
It is clear that the detaining authority had not taken care whether his
conclusion is based on the material etc. Though the learned Government
Advocate has pointed out that all the required details viz., “with a view to
prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities in future” has been
specifically stated in the next paragraph viz., para 6, we are of the view
that the omission in para 5 makes it clear that the detaining authority has
not applied his mind while passing the impugned order of detention.
4. As discussed above and in view of the fact that the
detaining authority himself has issued the amendment to the original order
dated 21.07.2005 on 03.08.2005, we are of the view that the omission at
paragraph 5 amply proves the non application of mind on the part of the
detaining authority. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of
detention.
5. 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 custody unless he is required in some other case or
cause.
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
raa
To
1. The District Magistrate & District
Collector, Villupuram District.
2. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 0 09.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.
(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.