Allowed

Maheswari v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

Madras HC16 Nov 2021HCP/1043/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the High Court quashed the detention order of Nirmal Kumar as a 'Goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, hold invalid because the arrest intimation was not fully translated into vernacular language, violating effective representation rights.

What did the court decide?

Habeas corpus petition allowed; detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.68/2020 dated 30.11.2020 set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless detained in another case.

Maheswari Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.11.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶5

H.C.P.No.1043 of 2021

¶6

Maheswari W/o.Ramadoss

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its

¶10

Secretary to Government,

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶12

Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶13

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶14

3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶15

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.

¶16

5.The Inspector of Police, Thirutani Police Station, Thiruvallur District. .. Respondents

¶17

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in BCDFGISSSV No.68/2020 dated 30.11.2020 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Nirmal Kumar s/o.Ramadoss, aged 22 years, who is now detained at Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶18

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

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Poornima For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor *****

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by R.HEMALATHA, J]

¶22

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu viz., Nirmal Kumar s/o.Ramadoss, aged 22 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.68/2020 dated 30.11.2020, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶23

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.

¶24

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 arrest intimation pertaining to the ground case has not been fully translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶25

On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record, especially, Page No.76 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation pertaining to the ground case has not been fully translated in vernacular language. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶26

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.68/2020 dated 30.11.2020 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Nirmal Kumar s/o.Ramadoss, aged 22 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

¶34

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066. 5.The Inspector of Police, Thirutani Police Station, Thiruvallur District. 6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mrs.R.Poornima, Advocate, S.R.No.58601

¶35

H.C.P.No.1043 of 2021 RSV(CO) CB(18/11/2021)

¶36

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

Maheswari v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheswari v. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by Its

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

A Vijayalakshmi Vs State by

Dipin @ Dinesh Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Dhanalakshmi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Supriya Vs the Secretary to the Government

R.Shanthi Vs the Secretary to Government

P.Kavibharathi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by