Habeas corpus petition filed to produce detainee Ravindiran and quash his detention order. The Court quashed the order due to absence of specific documents in the furnished booklet, violating Article 22(5) rights.
Detention order passed in No.C2/5105/2017 dated 21.02.2017 is quashed. Detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:01.09.2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN
H.C.P.No.533 of 2017
Sathyavani .... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector and The District Magistrate, Villupuram District, Villupuram. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus to produce the body of the detenu namely Ravindiran, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith, who is detained at Central Prison, Cuddalore, by calling for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 21.02.2017 in C2/5105/2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same.
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM,J.)
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order passed in No.C2/5105/2017, dated 21.02.2017, by the detaining authority against the detenu, by name Ravindiran, aged 33 years, S/o Rajamani, residing at Mariyamman Kovil Street, Orukodi Village, Villupuram Taluk and District, and quash the same.
4.In the counter filed on the side of the respondents it is averred to the effect that most of the averments made in the petition are false. The sponsoring authority has submitted all the relevant materials to the detaining authority. The detaining authority, after considering all the relevant materials and other connected documents, has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu has committed a grave offence and ultimately branded him as a 'Bootlegger' by way of passing the impugned detention order and the same does not require any interference and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that the detenu has been supplied with book-let, wherein copy of the remand order in Tamil version is not available. Further, the requisition made by the concerned Inspector of Police, for conducting chemical examination is also not available in the book-let. Under the said circumstances, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
7.In fact, this Court has analysed the entire book-let.
As rightly pointed out on the side of the petitioner, the documents mentioned in their contention are not available in the book-let. Since the documents mentioned in the contention are not available in the book-let, the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order dated 21.02.2017, passed in No.C2/5105/2017, by the detaining authority against the detenu, by name Ravindiran, aged 33 years, S/o Rajamani, residing at Mariyamman Kovil Street, Orukodi Village, Villupuram Taluk and District, is quashed and the respondents are directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with some other case.
H.C.P.No.533 of 2017
cp(co)
aa01/09/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the habeas corpus petition should be allowed due to absence of requisite documents in the detenu\'s booklet.
Whether the detention order violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sathyavani
State of Tamil Nadu
A.Selvam
P.Kalaiyarasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
