Allowed

S.Palaniammal v. the Lieutenant Governor

Madras HC15 Nov 2021HCP/688/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition seeking to quash a detention order. The court held that the detaining authority committed a non-application of mind by failing to consider whether the detenu was already in remand before issuing the order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo No.14/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2021 dated 05.04.2021 is set aside, and the detenu Aravind @ Pipe Aravind is directed to be released forthwith.

S.Palaniammal Vs the Lieutenant Governor — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

H.C.P.NO.688 OF 2021

S.Palaniammal

... Petitioner

.Vs.

The Lieutenant Governor, Rajnivas, Puducherry.

¶10

The Special Secretary to Government Home Department, Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Gubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001.

¶11

The District Magistrate -cum-Authorized Officer,

¶12

1^st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road, Kavundanpalayam, Puducherry – 605 009.

¶13

The Chief Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry. 5. The Station House Officer, Muthialpettai Police Station, Puducherry. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER:-

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in No.14/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2021 dated 05.04.2021 on the file of the 3^rd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Aravind @

¶16

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

¶17

Pipe Aravind, S/o.Mohan, aged about 29 years, who now confined in the Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.V.Balamurugane Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶22

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Aravind @ Pipe Aravind, S/o.Mohan, aged about 29 years. The detenu has been detained by the third respondent by his order in Memo No.14/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2021 dated 05.04.2021, holding him to be a "Dangerous Person", as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2008 (Act No.10 of 2010). 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 (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶24

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 for the petitioner, no materials were placed before the detaining authority as to whether the detenu was in remand or otherwise at the time of clamping the detention order and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not proper. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law.

¶25

A perusal of the booklet would go to show that no materials were placed before the detaining authority as to whether the detenu was in remand or otherwise at the time of clamping the detention order, which shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.

¶26

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

¶27

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.14/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2021 dated 05.04.2021, passed by the third respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Aravind @ Pipe Aravind, S/o.Mohan, aged about 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

nsd

¶33

¶34

The Secretary to Lieutenant Governor, Rajnivas, Puducherry.

¶35

The Special Secretary to Government Home Department, Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Gubert Avenue, Puducherry - 605 001.

¶36

The District Magistrate -cum-Authorized Officer, 1^st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road, Kavundanpalayam, Puducherry – 605 009.

¶37

The Chief Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry.

¶38

The Station House Officer, Muthialpettai Police Station, Puducherry.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶42

The Chief Secretary to Government, Puducherry.

¶43

H.C.P.NO.688 OF 2021

¶44

PPA(CO) PBS/17/11/2021

¶45

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

S.Palaniammal v. the Lieutenant Governor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Palaniammal v. the Lieutenant Governor

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

Gunashankari Vs the Secretary to the Government

D.Valarmathi Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Jegan Raj Vs State of Tamil Nadu

A Vijayalakshmi Vs State by

Dipin @ Dinesh Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Dhanalakshmi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by