Allowed

Ramu v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC6 Jul 2021HCP/2504/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order, the High Court observed that the remand extension order was not enclosed in the booklet provided to the detenu. This lapse deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to make an effective representation. Consequently, the court held that the detention order was vitiated in law. The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the detention order

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; detention order D.O.No.120/2020-C2 dated 03.11.2020 set aside; detenu Ramu directed to be released forthwith.

Ramu Vs the Secretary to the Government — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.2504 of 2020

¶6

Ramu

¶7

.. Petitioner/Detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary to the Government,

¶10

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

¶13

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

¶14

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore – 2.

¶15

5.The Inspector of Police, Arni Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents

¶16

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent 03.11.2020 in D.O.No.120/2020-C2 against me Ramu, aged about 25 years, son of Sasikumar, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶17

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

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Vel 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 detenu Ramu, aged about 25 years, son of Sasikumar. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.120/2020-C2 dated 03.11.2020, 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 and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶23

Though several grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the remand extension order pertaining to the ground case placed before the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu, which caused great prejudice to the detenu and he has been prevented from making an effective representation for consideration of the authorities concerned. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law.

¶24

A perusal of the booklet would go to show that the remand extension order pertaining to the ground case placed before the detaining authority has not been enclosed in the booklet furnished to the detenu. Therefore, non-furnishing of the above materials would obviously deprive of his opportunity to make effective representation and hence, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground.

¶25

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.120/2020-C2 dated 03.11.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,

¶26

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

¶27

Ramu, aged about 25 years, son of Sasikumar, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶30

//True copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

nsd

¶33

¶34

1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶35

Chennai – 600 009.

¶36

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

¶37

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

¶38

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore – 2.

¶39

5.The Inspector of Police, Arni Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

¶40

6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶41

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶42

H.C.P.No.2504 of 2020

¶43

GPL(CO) GMY(19/07/2021)

¶44

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

Ramu v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu v. the Secretary to the Government

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

Panchalai Vs the Secretary to Government

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Girija Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home

Mohammed Sulthan @ Shafeek Vs the State by

Sugu Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Kamala Vs the State of Tamil Nadu