Allowed

Kowsaliya v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Oct 2020HCP/550/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that illegible copies of documents deprived the detenu of the right to effective defense. Consequently, the detention order was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be released.

What did the court decide?

Detention order Memo No. BCDFGISSSV 118 / 2020 is quashed; detenu Annadurai directed to be released forthwith unless detained for another case.

Kowsaliya Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

HCP No 550 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.10.2020

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶7

H.C.P. No. 550 of 2020

¶8

Kowsaliya ... Petitioner -vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Veppary, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶9

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 Memo No. BCDFGISSSV 118 / 2020, dated 20.02.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Annadurai son of Shanmugam male aged 34 years now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set the detenu Annadurai son of Shanmugam, male, aged 34 years at liberty.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vellidoss For Respondents :^{Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,} Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶11

Page 1 of 5

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

HCP No 550 of 2020

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner is the mother of Annadurai, S/o.Shanmugam, aged about 34 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No. BCDFGISSSV 118 / 2020, dated 20.02.2020, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶17

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶18

3.Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several

¶19

other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

HCP No 550 of 2020

¶23

4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and

¶24

upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially the accident register copy pertaining to the similar case at Page No.301 of the booklet, it is clear that the detaining authority, by providing illegible copies of the documents, has taken away the rights of detenu to effectively defend himself against his detention. Thus the

¶25

impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶26

5 . In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the

¶27

order of detention in Memo No. BCDFGISSSV 118 / 2020, dated 20.02.2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Annadurai, S/o.Shanmugam, aged about 34 years is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection

¶28

with any other case.

¶29

(M.M.S.,J.) (D.K.K.,J.) 05.10.2020

¶30

Index: Yes/No mmi/ssm

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

HCP No 550 of 2020

¶34

¶35

1.The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

¶36

2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Veppary, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

HCP No 550 of 2020

¶40

M.M.SUNDRESH, J. and D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.

¶41

mmi/ssm

¶42

H.C.P. No. 550 of 2020
05.10.2020

¶43

Page 5 of 5

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

Kowsaliya v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kowsaliya v. 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

Kalaiselvi Vs State Rep. by

Banu Vs the Secretary to Government

Malar Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Karthika Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Selvi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

Elangovan Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its