Allowed

Nagalakshmi v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC28 Mar 2016HCP/2412/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, where the detaining authority failed to supply legible copies of the F.I.R. and documents, vitiating the orderly's ability to make a representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 29.08.2015 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for any other case.

Nagalakshmi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

H.C.P.No.2412 of 2015

¶6

Nagalakshmi
W/o. Karthick .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City Police, Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the detaining authority to produce the detainee, the petitioner's husband Karthick, S/o. Subramani, aged about 25 years, a resident of No.7, KPS Nagar, Kottamedu, Thiruverkadu, Chennai – 600 077, who has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 after having been declared as “Goonda” by order of the 2^nd respondent's detention order dated 29.08.2015 and presently confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai as TPDA No. 7033 under the Preventive Detention Order in BCDFGISSSV No. 826 of 2015, quash the said detention, set aside the same and set the detainee at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner :: Mr.A. Shiv Kumar For Respondents :: Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶9

[Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN, J.]

¶10

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Karthick, S/o. Subramani, aged about 25 years, a resident of No.7, KPS Nagar, Kottamedu, Thiruverkadu, Chennai – 600 077, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

second respondent, dated 29.08.2015, against her husband branding him as a “Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶13

2.Though, many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.A. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of the non-application of mind, on the part of the detaining authority, in passing the order of detention.

¶14

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the F.I.R. copy in Crime No.164 of 2013, on the file of K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station, found in the booklet and furnished to the detenu, are illegible and could not be read and understood. These illegible copies, would deprive the detenu of making an effective representation, to the authorities concerned against the order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated on this ground, and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶15

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed, on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with, at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition, does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

5.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.

¶17

6.A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that the copies of documents referred and relied upon and referred to by the Detaining Authority, in Crime No.164 of 2013, on the file of the K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station, found in the booklet at page Nos. 249 to 251, are illegible and are unreadable. This has resulted in the detenu being deprived of making an effective representation. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

¶18

7.It is trite law that, personal liberty protected under Article 21, is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that, it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

8.In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground.

¶21

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, in Memo No. 826/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 29.08.2015, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶22

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
nv
1. The Secretary to Government,
he Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City Police, Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai
4. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and order) Fort Saint George,
Chennai

¶23

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.2412 of 2015 RSY (CO) kk 22/4

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Nagalakshmi v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagalakshmi v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Sathya Vs the State Rep. by

K.Sudhagar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

F.Praveen Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Thiru. Thakkalipondan @ Vs the District Collector and

Rani Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Ammu Vs the Secretary to the Govt.