Allowed

Neelavathi v. the Secretary

Madras HC3 Jul 2019HCP/731/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition and set aside a detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The Court held that individual criminal acts disrupting law and order do not equate to a threat to public order required for detention.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 02.04.2019 No.C3/D.O/23/2019 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required for any other case.

Neelavathi Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.07.2019

¶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. 731 of 2019

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the detention order dated 02.04.2019 in detention order No.C3/D.O/23/2019, on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu Suresh, S/o.Kaliyaperumal, Hindu, aged about 32 years who is now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Suresh, S/o.Kaliyaperumal, Hindu, aged about 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.C3/D.O/23/2019, dated 02.04.2019, holding to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

¶8

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

¶9

The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶10

2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶11

The sponsoring authority has satisfied that the detenu has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a Goonda, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and hence, sponsored the detenu before the Detaining Authority for passing an order of detention against him. The Detaining Authority, on consideration of the materials placed before him, passed the order of detention against the detenu. Aggrieved of the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

¶12

4.Though, several grounds were raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus on the ground that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pending trial in which the detenu has been charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the detenu has involved in the ground case which has been registered under Sections 341, 294 (b) and 307 IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that due to previous enmity, the occurrence took place and it would not in any way be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence the order of detention is liable to be set aside.

¶14

6.On perusal of the materials available on record and after going through the grounds of detention, we find that the ground case relates to individual act and there may be violation of only law and order and not public order. Any disorderly behaviour of a person in the public or commission of a criminal offence is bound, to some extent, affect the peace prevailing in the locality and it may also affect law and order, but the same need not affect maintenance of public order. Hence, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

¶15

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.C3/D.O/23/2019, dated 02.04.2019 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Suresh, S/o.Kaliyaperumal, Hindu, aged about 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

mmi/ssm

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

1.The Secretary to Govt,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Chidambaram Town Police Station,
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent
Central Prison,Cuddalore.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (law & Order),
Fort Saint George, chennai 9
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No.731 of 2019
SPD(CO)
GN(02/08/2019)

¶24

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

Neelavathi v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelavathi v. the Secretary

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

Rani v Vs the Superintendent of Police

C.Amutha Vs the Home Secretary

S.Kalaiselvi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rani Vs State Rep by

Jothi Vs the Secretary to Government

Kannammal Vs the Secretary to Government