Allowed

Sumithra v. Government of Tamilnadu Rep.

Madras HC18 Mar 2016HCP/2567/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by a wife for the release of her husband detained under the Tamil Nadu Preventions of Dangerous Activities Act. The Court quashed the detention order due to total non-application of mind by the detaining authority regarding pending bail applications.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed, detention order set aside and the detenu directed to be released forthwith unless presence is required in another case.

Sumithra Vs Government of Tamilnadu Rep. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶7

H.C.P.No.2567/2015

¶8

Simithra .. Petitioner(Wife) Vs 1.The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in Cr.M.P.No.14/Goonda/2015 dated 25.08.2015 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's husband Madhan @ Selvakumar, son of Natarajan, aged 27 years, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.14/Goonda/2015 dated 25.08.2015, whereby the husband of the petitioner/the detenu herein, viz., Madhan @ Selvakumar, son of Natarajan, aged 27 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic

¶11

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

¶12

Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".

¶13

As per the grounds of detention, dated 25.08.2015, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶14

i)Adverse cases:

¶15

Sl Name of the Police Section of law
Nos station and Crime No.
.
1 Sulur PS, Coimbatore 395 r/w.396, 397 & 302
District Cr.No.641/2011 IPC
2 Palani PS, Dindigul 379 IPC
District Cr.No.315/2012
3 Dharapuram PS, Tiruppur 392 IPC
District,
Cr.No.577/2012
4 Samynathapuram PS, 392 IPC
Dindigul District,
Cr.No.198/2014
5. Uthiyur PS. Tiruppur 392 IPC
District, Cr.No.56/2015
6 Uthikuzhi PS, Tiruppur 394 IPC
District, Cr.No.102/2015
7 Vaangal PS, Karur 392 IPC
District,
Cr.N.37/2015
(ii) Ground Case:
Sl Name of the Police Section of law
No. station and Crime No.
1 Uthukuzhi PS, Tiruppur 342, 392, 506(i) IPC
District Cr.No.140/2015

¶16

3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Ms.R.Subhadra Devi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines her argument only in respect of the nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority, in passing the order of detention.

¶17

According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand, in the ground case, in Cr.No.140/2015, registered by Uthukuzhi Police Station and the detenu had not moved any bail application in the ground case, as on the date of the passing of the detention order. But

¶18

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

¶19

the Detaining Authority, in the Grounds of Detention, has stated that the relatives are taking steps to file bail application in the ground case. But, the said factum has not been reflected in the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority. This is indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and thus, the detention order is vitiated on the above sole ground and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶20

5.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.

¶21

6.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts of the case.

¶22

7.As evidenced from the Grounds of Detention, in particular, paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority has stated that the “Sponsoring Authority has stated that the accused Thiru. madhan @ Selvakumar's family is taking necessary steps to file bail applicaiton in cr.No.140/2015 before the appropriate Court. ... ...”. But, from a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority, it is evident that nothing has been stated by the Sponsoring Authority to the effect of the relatives are taking steps to file bail applications in the said cases and no statements of the relatives have been recorded to that effect. This is indicative of total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and it is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

¶23

8.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 had been passed, following the procedure established by law, maticulously. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with the situation, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order 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.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition
and Excise (XVI) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and
District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶30

H.C.P.No.2567/2015

¶31

sr(CO) srg(26/04/2016)

¶32

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

Sumithra v. Government of Tamilnadu Rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumithra v. Government of Tamilnadu Rep.

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

Tamarai Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Nandhini Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Rekha Vs the Secretary to Government

Mrs.S.Priya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Dosai Kumar @ Thiyagarajan Vs State of Tamilnadu

Amanullah Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by