Allowed

Manimegalai v. State Rep.by

Madras HC20 Jul 2021HCP/2492/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition filed by a wife for her husband detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Court quashed the detention order due to procedural lapses and non-application of mind regarding intimation to relatives.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.34/2020 dated 14.10.2020 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Manimegalai Vs State Rep.by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.07.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.NO.2492 OF 2020

Manimegalai

... Petitioner

Vs.

State represented by

The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu, Chengalpattu District.

¶13

The Superintendent of Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

¶14

The Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station, Chengalpattu District. ... Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records from the 2^nd respondent in connection with the order in BCDFGISSSV No.34/2020 dated 14.10.2020 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's husband Vijay, aged about 26 years, son of Suresh, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶16

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

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶21

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Vijay, aged about 26 years, son of Suresh. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.34/2020 dated 14.10.2020, 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.

¶22

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶23

Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the sponsoring authority has stated in the Arrest Memo at page No.87 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the mother of the detenu. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the mother of the detenu. Therefore, it is stated that the detenu was deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of furnishing of full particulars by the detaining authority. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind.

¶24

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the mother of the detenu through SMS.

¶25

However we find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such cases that the detention order cannot be sustained.

¶26

As evidenced from the document in page No.87 of the Booklet furnished to us, a mere endorsement is made by the authorities to the effect that the arrest intimation has been informed to the mother of the detenu through SMS, but, no

¶27

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

¶28

materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Thapal or Registered post or as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the relatives of the detenu would amount to deprivation of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and the same would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶29

It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.

¶30

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.34/2020 dated 14.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Vijay, aged about 26 years, son of Suresh, 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

¶35

nsd

¶36

¶37

The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,

¶38

Chennai – 600 009.

¶39

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Chengalpattu District.

¶40

The Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu,

¶41

Chengalpattu District.

¶42

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

¶43

The Superintendent of Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066.

¶44

The Inspector of Police, Thazhambur Police Station, Chengalpattu District.

¶45

The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶46

H.C.P.No.2492 of 2020

¶47

MG(CO) HS(26/07/2021)

¶48

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

Manimegalai v. State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manimegalai v. State Rep.by

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

Tamilselvi@Eniya Vs the Secretary to the Government

Saratha Vs the District Magistrate and

Ranganayagi Vs State Rep. by

Maheswari Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

T.Kavitha Vs the Secretary to Government

N.Omana Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by