Allowed

Mangavaram v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC1 Jul 2019HCP/691/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the mother of a petitioner detained under the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2008. The petition challenged the detention order on grounds of improper translation of documents and non-consideration of representation by the Government. The Court set aside the order. review. The Court found that the grounds of detention and doc

What did the court decide?

Set aside the detention order No. 02/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2019 dated 11.03.2019 and directed the release of the detenu Tamizh @ Tamizharasan forthwith unless detention is required in any other case.

Mangavaram Vs the Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.07.2019

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

H.C.P. No.691 of 2019

¶6

Mangavaram ... Petitioner -vs1.The Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Internal Security, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 2.The Lieutenant Governor, Rajnivas, Puducherry. 3.The District Magistrate cum Authorised Officer, Office of the District Magistrate, 1st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road, Kavundampalayam, Puducherry - 605 009. ... Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in No.02/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2019 dated 11.03.2019 passed by the third respondent under the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2008 (Act 10 of 2010) and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Tamizh @ Tamizharasan, S/o.Segar aged about 29 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry before this Court and set the petitioner's son Tamizh @ Tamizharasan, S/o.Segar aged about 29 years the detenu herein at liberty.

¶8

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

¶9

For Petitioner Mr.U.Yuvaraj

¶10

For Respondents Mr.S.S.Pajaniradja, CGSC for R1 Mr.D.Bharatha Chakravarthy Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) for R2 and R3

¶11

ORDER

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶13

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Tamizh @ Tamizharasan, S/o.Segar aged about 29 years. The detenu has been detained by the third respondent by his order in No.02/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2019 dated 11.03.2019, holding him to be a "Dangerous Person and Goonda", as contemplated under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 2008 (Act No.10 of 2010) The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶14

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for respondents 2 and 3. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶15

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of detention on the grounds that the materials relied on by the detaining authority were not furnished to the detenu and some of the documents furnished were also illegible. He would further submit that the documents relied on by the detaining authority were not translated in vernacular language and the grounds of detention in English were not properly translated in Tamil, which, according to the detenu, deprived of his opportunity to make effective representation to the Government opposing the order of detention and hence, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

¶16

4.There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the detaining authority.

¶17

On a perusal of the booklet furnished to the detenu and the grounds of detention, we are of the view that the documents relied on by the detaining authority and the grounds of detention were not properly translated in vernacular

¶18

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

¶19

language, thereby the detenu is deprived from making effective representation. Further, the representation of the detenu has been considered by the Advisory Board only and not by the Government. This would also vitiate the order of detention. Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

¶20

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.02/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2019 dated 11.03.2019 passed by the third respondent is set aside. The detenu Tamizh @ Tamizharasan, S/o.Segar aged about 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar

¶23

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

mmi/ssm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Internal Security, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001. 2.The Lieutenant Governor, Rajnivas, Puducherry. 3.The District Magistrate cum Authorised Officer,

¶25

Office of the District Magistrate, 1st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road, Kavundampalayam, Puducherry - 605 009. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry. 5.The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (law & Order), Fort Saint George, chennai 9

¶26

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

¶27

7.The Senior Superintendent of Police, (L & O), Puducherry.

¶28

8.The PS to Honourable Chief Minister, Puducherry.

¶29

The Director, Crime Records Bureau, Puducherry.

¶30

10.The Director General of Police,
Puducherry.
+1cc to Mr.S.S.Pajaniradja, Advocate, S.R.No. 55040
+1cc to The Public Prosecutor, Advocate, S.R.No. 54619
H.C.P. No.691 of 2019
MP(CO)
GN(14/08/2019)

¶31

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

Mangavaram v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangavaram v. the Secretary to Government

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

R.Parthiban Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Padmavathy Vs the State Represented by

Rajesh Joshwa Vs State by Its

Noorjahan Vs the Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Vs Gnanadesikan IAS

M.Vijay, Vs the Inspector of Police