Allowed

Kanagavalli v. the State Rep. by Its

Madras HC30 Mar 2016HCP/2537/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court of India heard a habeas corpus petition challenging a preventive detention order where the petitioner's husband was branded a 'Goonda'. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the detention order on the ground that the documents supplied for representation were illegible, violating Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order is set aside, the petition is allowed, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required for another case.

Kanagavalli Vs the State Rep. by Its — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

H.C.P.No.2537 of 2015

¶7

Kanagavalli .. Petitioner vs.

¶8

1.The State rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore District, Vellore – 9. .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in detention order No.C3/D.O.No.80/2015 dated 10.08.2015 and direct the respondents to produce the detenue namely Deena @ Dineshkumar, Male aged about 32 years, son of Parthasarathy now kept in Central Prison, Vellore before this Court and set aside the same and set him liberty

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Durai Gunasekaran For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN, J.]

¶12

The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Thiru Deena @ Dineshkumar, son of Parthasarathy, aged about 32 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 10.08.2015, against her husband branding him as a “Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu

¶13

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

¶14

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].

¶15

2.Though, many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.Durai Gunasekaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication of mind, on the part of the detaining authority, in passing the order of detention.

¶16

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, page Nos.44 and 45 in the booklet, furnished to the detenu, are illegible and could not be read at all. This illegible copies, would deprive the detenu of making effective representation, to the authorities, against the order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated, on these grounds and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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 particular, page Nos.44 and 45, are illegible and are totally 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.

¶20

7.It is a 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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in No.C3/D.O.No.80/2015 dated 10.08.2015 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.

¶24

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate of Vellore District,
Vellore – 9.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Vellore
5.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public Law and order
Fort St.George Chennai-9
H.C.P.No.2537 of 2015
aa26/04/2016

¶25

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

Kanagavalli v. the State Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanagavalli v. the State Rep. by Its

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

M.Kumutharani Vs the State Rep. by

Akash Mohamed Khan Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Nataraj Vs State

J.John Basha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mrs.N.Suganthi Vs the Secretary to Government

Ravathi Vs State of Tamilnadu