{"id":214529,"date":"2006-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006"},"modified":"2017-05-20T22:46:04","modified_gmt":"2017-05-20T17:16:04","slug":"k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 14\/07\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN    \n\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.1329 of 2005 \n and\n H.C.M.P. No.60 of 2006 \n\nK.Gunasekar                            ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Secretary to Government \nGovt. of Tamil Nadu,\nPublic (Law & Order) Dept.,\nSecretariat,\nChennai-9.\n\n2. Union of India rep.\nby Secretary to Govt.,\nMinistry of Finance, Dept.\nof Revenue, COFEPOSA Unit,   \nJanpath Bhavan, \n'B' Wing, 6th Floor,\nJanpath, New Delhi 110 001.             ... Respondents\n\n        Petition under Article 226  of  the  Constitution  of  India  for  the\nissuance  of  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  call for the records of the 1st\nrespondent made in G.O.No.SR.1\/987-2\/2005 dated 22.11.2005,  quash  the  same,   \ndirect the  respondent to produce detenu K.Gunasekhar, S\/o.  Krihnakutty Nair,\nnow  detained  in  Central  Prison,  Chennai,  under  the  provisions  of  the\nConservation  of  Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,\nand set him at liberty.\n\n!For Petitioner    :  Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram\n                      Senior Counsel for\n                      Mr.  N.Chandrasekaran.\n\nFor Respondent 1  :  Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran   \n                      Addl.  Government Pleader.\n\n For R 2           :  Mr.P.Kumaresan\n                      Addl. Central Govt.  Standing Counsel.\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
P.SATHASIVAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
                The  petitioner  herein  challenges  the  impugned  order   of
\ndetention,  dated  22.11.2005,  detaining  him  under  the  provisions  of the
\nConservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling  Activities  Act,
\n19 74 (COFEPOSA Act).\n<\/p>\n
                2.   Heard  Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram,  learned Senior Counsel for
\nthe petitioner; Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional  Public  Prosecutor
\nfor  R-1;  and  Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standing
\nCounsel for R-2.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  Before proceeding to consider the contentions and  counter
\narguments  advanced  on  either  side,  we  deem  it necessary to refer to the
\nfactual details of the case in a  compact  manner  so  as  to  understand  the
\ncontroversy involved,<\/p>\n
                On 08.09.2005, Officers attached to the Air Cargo Intelligence
\nUnit,  Air  Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai-27, on conducting examination
\nof brown coloured cardboard cartons on the same day at  19.30  hrs  and  20.15
\nhrs., seized 127 cartons containing soiled\/torn\/used shoe uppers, attempted to
\nbe  exported by M\/s.Poppy Leather and Apparels, Coimbatore, and M\/s.R.G.Impex,
\nMumbai, to the Companies at United Kingdom, by mis-declaring  the  description
\nas  ‘leather  shoe  uppers  for adults’ and inflating the value so as to claim
\nDuty Drawback vide Airway Bill Nos.217-6535 5010 (64 cartons) & 217-6343  9390
\n(63 cartons) and 10 shipping bills, all dated 03.09.2005.  The total number of
\nshoe uppers declared in all the above 10 shipping bills is 31750 pairs whereas
\non  examination,  it  was  found to contain only 19438 pairs out of which only
\n3980 were genuine and new show uppers.  Likewise, the total value declared  in
\nrespect  of  the consignments under the 10 shipping bills seized by way of two
\nseparate  seizures   was   Rs.1,81,44,064\/-   with   a   drawback   claim   of
\nRs.14,15,235\/-.   The  investigation  revealed  that  the detenu herein, viz.,
\nGunasekar, has played a vital role in floating  several  proprietary  concerns
\nand firms in his name and in the names of his associates and employees for the
\npurpose   of   claiming  Duty  Drawback  benefits  fraudulently  by  exporting
\nsub-standard, junk, old and unusable goods having no definite commercial value
\nby mis-declaring the actual contents\/descriptions, quantity and value.  Taking
\nnote of the alleged activities of the detenu, the Detaining Authority  clamped
\nupon him the impugned order of detention.\n<\/p>\n
                4.   At the foremost, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
\npetitioner submitted  that  certain  material  documents,  viz.,  (a)  Customs
\nRecords  with  regard  to Rs.15 Crores of drawback, which has been cleared and
\ndrawn by the detenus group of companies;       (b) Bank Statements pertaining
\nto detenus companies; and (c) Records  available  with  the  Department  with
\nregard to  the  ownership  of  Poppy  Leather and R.G.  Impex; were not placed
\nbefore the Detaining Authority  and  withheld  by  the  Sponsoring  Authority.
\nAccording  to the learned Senior Counsel, if those material documents had been
\nplaced before the Detaining Authority, he would not have passed the  detention
\norder.   Further,  supposing those documents were placed before the authority,
\nnon-supply of the same to the detenu would vitiate the detention order  as  it
\nis violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  As against the above contention, learned Additional Public
\nProsecutor submitted that all the relevant, required and relied upon documents
\nwere furnished to the detenu and there is no truth in the contention.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   In para No.8 sub clauses (b) (c) and (e) of the affidavit
\nfiled in support of the petition, the petitioner has specifically stated  that
\nhe  claimed  for  customs  records  regarding  the  amount  of Rs.15 Crores of
\ndrawback, which has been claimed and drawn by the detenus group of companies;
\nBank statement pertaining to detenus companies; and  records  available  with
\nthe Department with regard to the ownership of Poppy Leathers and R.G.  Impex.\n<\/p>\n
                In  the counter affidavit, with regard to the above claim, the
\nAdditional Secretary to Government, Public (Law  and  Order)  Department,  has
\nstated that the detenus statements and all the relevant documents were placed
\nbefore  the  Detaining  Authority  to  arrive at a subjective satisfaction for
\ndetaining the detenu.  It is further stated that the question  regarding  Duty
\nDrawback to the tune of Rs.15 Crores was only for the purpose of investigation
\nand  to  elicit certain answers and that the questions posed to the detenu are
\nirrelevant for the purpose of detention.  Apart from the above information, in
\nthe grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has narrated and referred to
\nthe relevant details in pages 1 to  5.    The  total  number  of  shoe  uppers
\ndeclared  in  all  the  above  10  shipping  bills  is  31750 pairs whereas on
\nexamination, it was found to contain only 19438 pairs out of which only 3  980
\nwere genuine  and  new  show  uppers.    It further shows that the total value
\ndeclared in respect of the consignments under 10 shipping bills referred to in
\nthe two separate seizures  was  Rs.1,81,44,064\/-  with  a  drawback  claim  of
\nRs.14,15,235\/-.   The  grounds  further  show  that  in view of the fraudulent
\nattempt to claim ineligible drawback amount on the basis of mis-declaration of
\ncontents of the goods sought to be exported and also the  quantity  and  value
\nthereon   noticed  consequent  to  the  seizures,  further  investigation  was
\nconducted and, during the course of such investigation, statements  have  been
\ngiven by  certain connected persons.  The Detaining Authority, after referring
\nto the statements of S.Balachandran, Customs Clearing Agent;  G.Arumugam,  his
\nAssistant;  V.Devendrudu,  Clearing  and  Forwarding Agent; various documents;
\nvoluntary statements of the detenu and one Ravi Laxman, who is  in  charge  of
\nexports  of  the  companies  of  the detenu; and after finding that the detenu
\nplayed a major role in floating several proprietary concerns and firms in  his
\nname  and  in  the  names  of  his Associates and employees for the purpose of
\nclaiming duty drawback benefits fraudulently by exporting sub-standard,  junk,
\nold  and  unusable goods, having no definite commercial value, by misdeclaring
\nthe actual contents\/description, quantity and value; with a  view  to  prevent
\nhim  from  indulging  in  smuggling activities in future, passed the detention
\norder under the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act.  In such circumstances, we are
\nsatisfied that all the  relevant  records\/materials  were  placed  before  the
\nDetaining Authority and that those materials were also supplied to the detenu,
\nthus, there  is no substance in the contention.  It is settled law that merely
\nbecause some statements have been made and details  of  certain  records  were
\nreferred to for the purpose of narrating the sequence of events, the same need
\nnot be  supplied  to the detenu.  In other words, only the relevant and relied
\nupon documents ought to be supplied to the detenu and, as  said  earlier,  all
\nthe required documents were supplied to the detenu.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that, in
\nthe representation dated 06.12.2005, certain documents were asked for from the
\nState  Government,  however,  the same were not supplied to the detenu, due to
\nwhich, he was prevented from making effective representation.  This aspect has
\nbeen answered in para No.11 of the counter affidavit, wherein,  it  is  stated
\nthat copy of the fax, as required, has been supplied and the same is available
\nin page  Nos.253  and  254  of the paper book supplied to the detenu.  As said
\nearlier, the question regarding Duty Drawback to the tune of Rs.15 crores  was
\nonly  for  the purpose of investigation and to elicit certain answers; and the
\nquestions posed to the detenu are irrelevant for the purpose of detention.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   According  to  the  learned  Senior  Counsel,  the  detenu,  when
\nquestioned  with  reference to the Bank Accounts relating to his Companies and
\ntransactions, answered that those details were known to his Accountant by name
\nP.R.Jayaprakash.  By pointing out the same, he submits, that being  the  case,
\nthe said Jayaprakash should have been examined and a statement would have been
\nobtained from him, however, no such statement was furnished to the detenu.\n<\/p>\n
                9.   Insofar as the statement of P.R.Jayaprakash is concerned,
\nit is stated that he has not been located so far by the Department, therefore,
\nno statement has been recorded from  him.    In  para  No.12  of  the  counter
\naffidavit,  it  is  stated that the detenus statements were placed before the
\nDetaining Authority and that there  is  no  need  to  place  whatever  records
\nreferred to  in  the  statement  before the Detaining Authority.  It is not in
\ndispute that the representation dated 06.12.20  05  of  the  detenu  has  been
\nreplied to.   In para No.13 of the counter affidavit, the Additional Secretary
\nto the Government has specifically stated that there is no  relevant  document
\nwhich  remains  to be supplied to the detenu and that there is no violation of
\nany provision of the Constitution.  In the light of the details  furnished  in
\nthe  counter  affidavit  and  also of the fact that all the relevant materials
\nhave been supplied to the detenu, which are available in the paper book, we do
\nnot find any substance in the above contention.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next  submitted
\nthat  the  confessional  statement  of  Ravi Laxman, though relied upon by the
\nDetaining Authority, in the bail  application,  he  retracted  his  statement,
\nhowever,  the  said  document  containing retraction was not placed before the
\nDetaining Authority, which vitiates the  ultimate  order  of  detention.    He
\npointed  out  that in para No.xvi, the Detaining Authority has referred to the
\nvoluntary statement dated 20.09.2005 given  before  the  Customs  Officers  by
\nM.P.Ravi Laxman.    He  also  pointed  out  that,  among  other materials, the
\nconfessional statement of Ravi Laxman, who was in charge  of  exports  of  the
\ndetenus  concern,  was  placed when the Detaining Authority decided to detain
\nthe detenu under the COFEPOSA Act, however, the bail application, wherein, the
\nsaid Ravi Laxman retracted, was not placed before the Detaining Authority.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  A perusal of the grounds  of  detention  shows  that  the
\nDetaining  Authority,  after  considering the statement of M.P.Ravi Laxman and
\nthat of the detenu and other employees, arrived at a conclusion that, for  the
\npurpose  of  claiming Duty Drawback benefits, the detenu fraudulently exported
\nsubstandard, junk, old and unusable  goods  having  no  commercial  value,  by
\nmis-declaring the  actual contents, quantity and value.  In other words, it is
\nclear that the Detaining Authority has based  his  conclusion  to  detain  the
\ndetenu  under  the  COFEPOSA  Act not only on the statement of Ravi Laxman but
\nalso the statements of other employees viz., Vasumathi,  Sankar,  Jayaprakash,
\nG.Arumugam,  Balachandran and Shanmugam, who are working in the company of the
\ndetenu, as well as various other documents.  In such circumstances, even if it
\nis accepted that Ravi Laxman retracted his earlier confession statement in his
\nBail Application, we are satisfied that it  would  not  affect  the  detention
\norder passed  by  the  authority.    In this regard, learned Additional Public
\nProsecutor heavily relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1990 I
\nSCC page 81 (Madan Lal Anand vs.  Union of India).  Before the Supreme  Court,<\/a>
\nit  was  contended  on behalf of the detenu that while the Detaining Authority
\nhad relied upon and referred to the confessional statement of  the  detenu  as
\nrecorded by the Collector under Section 108 of the Customs Act, in the grounds
\nof  detention,  the  retraction  made  by the detenu was not placed before the
\nDetaining Authority for his consideration; and urged that  if  the  retraction
\nhad  been  considered  by the Detaining Authority, his subjective satisfaction
\ncould have been in favour of  the  detenu  and  against  making  an  order  of
\ndetention.   While  answering  the  said contention, Their Lordships have held
\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n
        ” 28.  It is desirable that any retraction made should also be  placed
\nbefore the  detaining  authority.    But,  that does not mean that if any such
\nretraction is  not  placed  before  the  detaining  authority,  the  order  of
\ndetention would   become   invalid.     Indeed,  this  question  came  up  for
\nconsideration before a three Judge bench of  this  Court  in  Prakash  Chandra
\nMehta v.    Commissioner  and  Secretary,  Government of Kerala<\/a> (1985 Supp SCC\n<\/p>\n
144).  In that case, a similar contention was made.  This Court in  overruling
\nthe  contention  has  referred  to  Section  5-A  of  the COFEPOSA Act and has
\nobserved as follows:  (SCC p.166, para 71)<\/p>\n
                ” Section 5-A stipulates that when  the  detention  order  has
\nbeen  made  on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to
\nhave been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly that if  one
\nirrelevant  or  one inadmissible ground had been taken into consideration that
\nwould not make the detention order bad.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        29.  In the instant case, even assuming that the  ground  relating  to
\nthe confessional statement made by the detenu under Section 108 of the Customs
\nAct   was   an  inadmissible  ground  as  the  subsequent  retraction  of  the
\nconfessional statement was not considered by the  detaining  authority,  still
\nthen  that  would  not  make  the detention order bad, for in the view of this
\nCourt, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on
\neach of such grounds.  Therefore, even excluding the inadmissible ground,  the
\norder of detention can be justified.  …..  ”\n<\/p>\n
                12.   Thus,  it  is  clear  that,  in  view  of  the  abundant
\nmaterials, merely because the retracted statement  of  Ravi  Laxman\/co-accused
\nwas  not  placed  before  the Detaining Authority, the subjective satisfaction
\ncannot be said to be affected and we are satisfied that, on that  ground,  the
\ndetention order  cannot be interfered with.  It is settled law that the object
\nof prosecution of a person in criminal court is punitive and  the  purpose  of
\npassing orders  of  detention  is  intended to be preventive.  In the criminal
\ncourt, the burden is placed on the prosecution to establish the  guilt  of  an
\naccused  beyond  reasonable doubt, whereas, the Detaining Authority can act on
\nthe subjective satisfaction of the materials, and  pass  orders  in  order  to
\nprevent the activities prejudicial to the community in general, of the persons
\nto be detained.\n<\/p>\n
        In the light of the above discussion, we  are  unable  to  accept  the
\nargument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   Mr.Shanmugasundaram,  learned  Senior  Counsel,  further
\nsubmitted  that  the  grounds of detention have to be formulated and the order
\nhas to be passed only after  consideration  of  all  the  materials  together.
\nSince  both  the  last  document  as  also  the  order  of detention are dated
\n22.11.2005 and the total pages in the Paper Book running into  414  pages,  it
\nwould  not  have been possible for the Detaining Authority to pass an order on
\nthe same day, that is, on  22.11.2005.    With  regard  to  the  same,  it  is
\nexplained  in  para  No.15  of the counter affidavit that the voluminous paper
\nbook running into 414 pages show that all the relevant materials pertaining to
\nhis case  were  placed  by  the  Sponsoring  Authority  before  the  Detaining
\nAuthority.   It  is further stated that it also belies the claim of the detenu
\nthat some of the documents are not supplied to him.  It is also explained that
\nexcept the last document, which is dated 22.11.2005, the preceding document at
\npage No.405 is dated 19.10.2005 and the documents previous to it  are  all  of
\nvarious  prior dates, hence, the detention order is in no way vitiated on this
\naspect of non consideration of all the documents at the same time.  As rightly
\npointed out in para No.4 of the grounds of detention, the State Government had
\ntaken into consideration all the facts and materials referred  to  and  relied
\nupon in  the  grounds, the statements and mahazars.  We are satisfied that the
\napprehension and allegations of the detenu in  this  regard  are  without  any
\nbasis or merit.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   Learned  Senior  Counsel  for the petitioner pointed out
\nthat the Detaining Authority has misread the statement of Balachandran and did
\nnot take into consideration Arumughams statement.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   These  doubts  have  been  specifically   clarified   in
\nparagraph No.9 of the counter affidavit.  It is stated, ‘Thiru Balachandran in
\nhis  voluntary statement given on 10.09.2005 specifically states that as reply
\nto question No.4, that he had met the detenu once.’ As rightly pointed out, it
\nis evident that he knows the detenu and there  is  no  contradiction  on  this
\nissue  since the statement was given by him voluntarily in his handwriting and
\nwhen questions were posed to him, he answered them in his  own  way  and  this
\nalso shows  that  it is his voluntary statement.  Hence, this cannot be stated
\nas a contradiction or omission on any account.  Likewise, G.Arumugam,  in  his
\nvoluntary statement given on 09.09.2005 inter alia stated that he had received
\nthe export documents of M\/s.Poppy Leather and Apparel and M\/s.R.G.  Impex from
\nGunasekar, the  detenu.  In this regard, it is pointed out that the detenu was
\nabsconding from the date of seizure, that is, on 08.09.20 05, and he had to be
\nlocated by the Customs Officers on their own, which they  did  on  27.09.2005.
\nEven the wife of the detenu Tmt.  Geetha did not know his whereabouts as given
\nin her  voluntary  statement on 20.09.2005.  It is stated that due to the said
\nreason, it  was  not  feasible  to  produce  the  detenu  before  Arumugam  on
\n09.09.2005 since  the  detenu was absconding.  In the light of the explanation
\noffered in the counter affidavit, we are unable to accept the said  contention
\nalso.\n<\/p>\n
                16.    Learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the  petitioner  further
\ncontended that the pre detention representation sent  to  the  the  Secretary,
\nGovernment  of  Tamil  Nadu,  Home  Ministry  (SC)  Public,  Chennai-9,  dated
\n14.11.2005 and 18.11.2005, by registered post by the wife of  the  detenu  was
\nneither considered  nor  reflected  in the grounds of detention.  In paragraph
\nNo.18 of the counter affidavit, the deponent  viz.,  Additional  Secretary  to
\nGovernment,  Public  (Law  and  Order), has specifically denied the receipt of
\nsuch representation.    According  to  him,  no  such   representation   dated
\n14.11.2005  and 18.11.2005 came to be received before passing of the detention
\norder.  There is no reason to disbelieve the assertion  made  in  the  counter<\/p>\n
affidavit.   Learned  Additional  Public Prosecutor also produced the original
\nrecords and, on perusal of  the  same,  we  accept  the  stand  taken  by  the
\nDepartment.  Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.\n<\/p>\n
                17.   Finally,  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the  petitioner
\nsubmitted that, even if the representation reached the authority after passing
\nof the order of detention, the same ought  to  have  been  placed  before  the
\nAdvisory Board.    Reply, dated 15.02.2006, of the State Government shows that
\nthe  representation  of  the  detenus  wife  dated  14.11.2005  sent  to  the
\nGovernment;  the  representation  of  the detenu dated 06.12.2 005 sent to the
\nGovernment through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai; and all  other
\ndocuments  received  by  the Government; were placed before the Advisory Board
\n(COFEPOSA) under Section 8(b) of the COFEPOSA Act.  It further shows that  the
\nState Advisory Board, after considering the grounds of detention served on the
\nCOFEPOSA  detenu,  the  enclosures  attached  to  the  grounds  of  detention,
\nrepresentation of the detenus wife dated 14.11.2005,  representation  of  the
\ndetenu dated 06.12.2005 and all other documents sent by the Government and the
\noral  representation  of  the detenu as well as his wife Geetha at the time of
\npersonal  hearing  before  the  State  Advisory  Board  on  27.01.200  6   has
\nunanimously  expressed  its  opinion  that  there  is sufficient cause for the
\ndetention of K.Gunasekar.  Thereafter, the Government has also considered  the
\nopinion of   the   State   Advisory  Board  and  agreed  with  it.    In  such
\ncircumstances, we are unable to accept even the last argument of  the  learned
\nSenior Counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  We are satisfied that the Detaining Authority, only after
\nconsidering  all the relevant materials and finding that the detenu has played
\na major role in floating several proprietary concerns and firms  in  his  name
\nand  in  the  name of his Associates and employees for the purpose of claiming
\nDuty Drawback benefits fraudulently by exporting sub-standard, junk,  old  and
\nunusable goods having no definite commercial value by mis-declaring the actual
\ncontents,  quantity  and  value;  with a view to prevent him from indulging in
\nsmuggling activities in future, detained  him  under  the  provisions  of  the
\nCOFEPOSA Act.    We  find that the Detaining Authority has not only considered
\nall the relevant materials but the detenu  was  also  provided  with  all  the
\nrequired  and  relied  upon  materials  and  there  is  no procedural error or
\nviolation.   It  is  apparent  that  the  detenu   was   afforded   sufficient
\nopportunities to put forth his defence and that his representation and that of
\nhis family members were also considered and disposed of timely and carefully.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   In  these  circumstances,  we  do  not find any error or
\ninfirmity or valid ground  for  interference.    Consequently,  Habeas  Corpus
\nPetition fails and the same is dismissed.  Connected Miscellaneous Petition is
\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n
JI.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  Secretary to Govt.,
\nPublic (SC) Department,
\nFort St.  George, Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Secretary to Govt.,
\nMinistry of Finance, Department
\nof Revenue, COFEPOSA Unit,
\nCentral Economic Intelligence Bureau,
\nJanpath Bhavan,
\n‘B’ Wing, VI Floor, Janpath,
\nNew Delhi 110 001.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Superintendent,
\nCentral Prison, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Public Prosecutor,
\nHigh Court, Madras.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 14\/07\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN Habeas Corpus Petition No.1329 of 2005 and H.C.M.P. No.60 of 2006 K.Gunasekar … Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Secretary to Government Govt. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-20T17:16:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-20T17:16:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3397,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006\",\"name\":\"K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-20T17:16:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-20T17:16:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-20T17:16:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006"},"wordCount":3397,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006","name":"K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-20T17:16:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gunasekar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-14-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Gunasekar vs The Secretary To Government on 14 July, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214529"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214529\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}