Allowed

Devaki v. State Rep by

Madras HC6 Apr 2016HCP/2797/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the mother of a detainee, setting aside a detention order dated 17.09.2015 under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act because key documents supporting the order were illegible and unreadable, depriving the detenu of effective representation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 17.09.2015 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required for any other case.

Devaki Vs State Rep by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

H.C.P.No. 2797/2015

Devaki .. Petitioner

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

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police Chennai. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's son, namely, Vijayan, S/o.Palani @ Palanivelu, Male, aged 34 years, presently detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066, under Act 14 of 1982, as an 'Goonda' vide the detention order dated 17.09.2015, on the file of the 2^nd respondent, made in BCDFGISSSV No.920/2015, and quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to produce the body and the person of the detenu, before this Court and thereafter, to set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶13

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

¶14

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the mother of the detenu, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in BCDFGISSSV No.920/2015, dated 17.09.2015, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Vijayan, S/o.Palani @

¶15

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

¶16

Palanivelu, Male, aged 34 years, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty, forthwith.

¶17

We have heard, Mr.S.Nabirajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State; and we have also perused the records, carefully.

¶18

Though, a number of grounds had been raised by the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order of detention, dated 17.09.2015, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had submitted that, in the page Nos.29, 57, 93 and 175 of the booklet supplied to the detenu in English, the copy of the documents relating to the ground case in R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.3011 of 2015 and all the three adverse cases, viz., R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.247 of 2015; R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.268 of 2015; and R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.3003 of 2015, are illegible, and could not be read. These illegible copies would deprive the detenu of making 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.

¶19

The said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had not been refuted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶20

It is noted that in the page Nos.29, 57, 93 and 175 of the booklet supplied to the detenu in English, the copy of the documents relating to the ground case in R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.3011 of 2015 and all the three adverse cases, viz., R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.247 of 2015; R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.268 of 2015; and R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.3003 of 2015, are illegible, and totally unreadable. This has resulted in the detenu being deprived of making an effective representation. In such circumstances, we find that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, in passing the detention order. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned detention order.

¶21

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

¶22

6.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 17.09.2015, 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.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶25

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2797/2015

¶26

ppa(CO) srg(28/04/2016)

¶27

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

Devaki v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devaki v. State Rep by

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

Lakshmi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Muthu Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Saraswathy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M. Babu Vs the Insector of Police

Munivel Alias Kutti Vs State Rep by

Lakshmi Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by