Allowed

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

Madras HC12 Jul 2021HCP/28/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the mother of a detenu challenged his confinement under the Tamil Nadu Act of 1982. The High Court held that the detention order lacked a proper vernacular translation of Form No.14 and was issued without legible copies of supporting documents. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the detention order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order C.M.P.No.61/Goonda/Salem City/2020 dated 23.12.2020 was set aside and the detenu Kozhi Baskar @ Baskaran was directed to be released forthwith.

Mahalakshmi Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.07.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

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

¶5

H.C.P.No.28 of 2021

¶6

Mahalakshmi .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Annathanapatty Police Station, Salem District. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District. .. Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in C.M.P.No.61/Goonda/Salem City/2020 dated 23.12.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Kozhi Baskar @ Baskaran, son of Madeswaran, aged about 40 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner is the mother of Kozhi Baskar @ Baskaran, son of Madeswaran, aged about 40 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.M.P.No.61/Goonda/Salem City/2020 dated 23.12.2020, 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Though the 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 Judicial Form No.14 of the order of detention has not been properly translated in vernacular language. He further submitted 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 these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶17

On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.34 and 36 of the booklet, it is clear that the Judicial Form No.14 of the order of detention has not been properly translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶18

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.M.P.No.61/Goonda/Salem City/2020 dated 23.12.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The

¶19

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

¶20

detenu, viz., Kozhi Baskar @ Baskaran, son of Madeswaran, aged about 40 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

nsd

¶26

¶27

The Secretary, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Annathanapatty Police Station, Salem District.

¶28

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem, Salem District. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.28 of 2021

¶29

RLD(CO) PM(30/07/2021)

¶30

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahalakshmi 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

M.Karthik@Karthi Vs The State rep by its

Ganesan Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

Ganesan Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its

Musthirijohn Vs State Rep.by

G.Amala Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

A.Dhayalan Vs the Additional Chief Secretary