Allowed

C.Pappa v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC12 Jul 2021HCP/60/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 was filed to challenge a detention order under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court held that the failure to enclose the remand extension order in the booklet furnished to the detenu deprived him of the opportunity for effective representation, thereby vitiating the order.

What did the court decide?

Set aside detention order in Memo No.496/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 04.12.2020 and direct the release of the detenu forthwith unless required for another case.

C.Pappa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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.60 of 2021

¶6

C.Pappa

¶7

..Petitioner/ Mother of Detenue

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George,Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, The Commissioner Office,

¶11

Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai.

¶13

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai - 66. ..Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.496/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 04.12.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's son Suresh @ Soozhchi Suresh, son of Chandrasekar, aged about 26 years, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chandranathan

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner is the mother of Suresh @ Soozhchi Suresh, son of Chandrasekar, aged about 26 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.496/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 04.12.2020, 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.496/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 04.12.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Suresh @ Soozhchi Suresh, son of Chandrasekar, aged about 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

nsd

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, The Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. 3. The Inspector of Police, Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison – II, Puzhal, Chennai – 66. 5. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

H.C.P.No.60 of 2021

¶33

SSN(CO) RGA(30/07/2021)

¶34

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

C.Pappa v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Pappa v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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