Allowed

J.John Basha v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC30 Mar 2016HCP/2604/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the High Court of Madras quashed an detention order under the Tamil Nadu Immoral Traffic Act. The court held that the order was invalid because the booklet containing documents relied upon by authorities was illegible, depriving the detenue of the opportunity to make an effective representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 22.09.2015 is set aside and the detenue is directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

J.John Basha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.03.2016

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P.No.2604 of 2015

¶5

J.John Basha .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The State rep. By its
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007. .. Respondents

¶6

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 No.1003/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 22.09.2015 approved by the first respondent and set aside the same and produce the detenue Alima @ Banu @ Shanu, aged 36 years W/o Mohammed Vaseer now detained in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

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

¶8

The petitioner, who is the father of the detenue, Alima @ Banu @ Shanu, aged 36 years W/o Mohammed Vaseer, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 22.09.2015, against his

¶9

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

¶10

daughter branding her as an “Immoral Traffic Offender" 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].

¶11

2.Though, many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr..C.C.Chellappan, 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.

¶12

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, page Nos.107, 109, 115 & 116 in the booklet, furnished to the detenue, are illegible and could not be read at all. This illegible copies, would deprive the detenue 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

6.A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenue, would show that the copies of documents referred and relied upon and referred to by the Detaining Authority, in particular, page Nos.107, 109, 115 & 116, are illegible and are totally unreadable. This has resulted in the detenue being deprived of making an effective representation. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in No.1003/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 22.09.2015 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenue is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶20

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶21

True copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4.The Superintendent
Special prison for women
Puzhal, chennai
5.The Joint Secretary
Public law and order FSG, Chennai-9
H.C.P.No.2604 of 2015
aa26/04/2016

¶22

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

J.John Basha v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.John Basha v. the State 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

M.Kumutharani Vs the State Rep. by

Akash Mohamed Khan Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Nataraj Vs State

Kanagavalli Vs the State Rep. by Its

Mrs.N.Suganthi Vs the Secretary to Government

Ravathi Vs State of Tamilnadu