Allowed

Varalakshmi @ Kokila v. the Secretary to Govt

Madras HC9 Oct 2020HCP/724/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a habeas corpus petition against a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, quashing the order on the ground that illegible copies of documents deprived the detenu of the right to effective representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order passed by the second respondent is set aside; the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is required for any other case.

Varalakshmi @ Kokila Vs the Secretary to Govt — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

H.C.P.NO.724 OF 2020

¶7

Varalakshmi @ Kokila ... Petitioner -vs-

¶8

1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District, Chengalpattu. 3. The Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent Office, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066 5. State Rep. by its The Inspector of Police PEW, Madurantakam Police Station, Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the entire records, relating to the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 10.03.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.07/2020, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Alex @ Vinothkumar, S/o.Sagayam, aged 32 years before this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sasikumar

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

The petitioner is the wife of Alex @ Vinothkumar, S/o.Sagayam, aged 32 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent in connection with order in BCDFGISSSV No.07/2020 dated 10.03.2020, holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶16

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.

¶17

3.Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several 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.

¶18

4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially the lab report pertaining to third adverse case at Page No.79 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 impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶19

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.07/2020 dated 10.03.2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Alex @ Vinothkumar, S/o.Sagayam, aged 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

mmi/ssm

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Chengalpattu District,
Chengalpattu.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Superintendent Office,
Chengalpattu,
Chengalpattu District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Puzhal
Chennai 600 066
5. The Inspector of Police
PEW, Madurantakam Police Station,
Chengalpattu District.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.724 of 2020
CP(CO)
CS/03/11/2020

¶25

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

Varalakshmi @ Kokila v. the Secretary to Govt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varalakshmi @ Kokila v. the Secretary to Govt

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

Kasthuri Vs Union of India

Revathi Vs the Secretary to Government

Subramanian Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Shabiya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Paramasivam Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Sudarmathi Vs the State of Tamilnadu