Allowed

Divya v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Apr 2016HCP/2999/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed a detention order under Act 14/82 branding the petitioner's husband as a Goonda. The Court held the order was vitiated because supplied documents were illegible, denying the detenu an effective right to make representation under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside and detenu released forthwith unless presence required for other case.

Divya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

H.C.P.No.2999/2015

¶6

Divya ..... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

¶9

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur. ..... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS calling for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's husband K.Senthil @ Senthilkumar, son of Kalimuthu, male, aged about 33 years, who has been detained under Act 14/82 as a ''Goonda'' vide Detention Order dated 13.11.2015, on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein, made in C.No.40/G/IS TPR ( C )/2015, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty.

¶11

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

¶12

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the wife of the detenu, namely, Senthil @ Senthil Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Kalimuthu, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in C.No.40/G/IS TPR (C)/2015, dated 13.11.2015, passed by the 2nd

¶13

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

¶14

Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of 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 14/1982), the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central Prison, Vellore, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty, forthwith.

¶15

2.Though, many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.M.Rajavelu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application 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.91 and 105 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.91 and 105, 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

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in C.No.40/G/IS TPR ( C)/2015, dated 13.11.2015 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

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶26

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsi
To
1.The Secretary to Government (Home)
Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruppur City, Tiruppur.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Vellore.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2999/2015
rsy co
kra 25.05.2016

¶27

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

Divya v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya 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

Vandimalayan Vs the State Rep by

Tower Murugan @ Murugan, Vs State by Inspector of Police

G.Surendran Vs State Rep. by

Ramesh Majhi Vs the Inspector of Police

Lakshmanan Vs the Secretary to Government

Kumar Vs the Secretary to Govt.