Allowed

Manjusha v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC13 Sept 2023HCP/912/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 challenged a preventive detention order made under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that the unreadable Prisoner's Search Property Register in the ground case impaired the detenu's right to effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court quashed the detention order and directed the release of the petitioner's husb

What did the court decide?

Impugned preventive detention order dated 10.05.2023 set aside; detenu Vibul @ Santhosh directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Manjusha Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

H.C.P.No.912 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

H.C.P.NO.912 OF 2023

¶7

Manjusha .. Petitioner

¶8

VS.

¶9

1.The Secretary to Government

¶10

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Erode District, Erode.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Police Erode District Erode.

¶13

4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison – Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

¶14

5.State Rep. By its The Inspector of Police Chithode Police Station Erode District.

¶15

Respondents

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/10

¶18

H.C.P.No.912 of 2023

¶19

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for entire records, relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 10.05.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo Cr.M.P.No.08/Goonda/2023/C1, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Vibul @ Santhosh, son of Ayyappan @ Ayyappankutty, aged 31 years before this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji for Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

ORDER

¶23

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

¶24

Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of

¶25

brevity] has been filed by wife of the detenu assailing a 'preventive

¶26

detention order dated 10.05.2023 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.08/Goonda/2023C1' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted,

¶27

fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the

¶28

detaining authority as impugned preventive detention order has been made by second respondent.

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/10

¶31

H.C.P.No.912 of 2023

¶32

2.Impugned preventive detention order has been made under

¶33

'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slumgrabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on

¶34

the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

¶35

3.There are three adverse cases. The ground case which

¶36

constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.39 of 2023 on the file of Chithode Police Station for alleged offence registered under Section 399 of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity] and subsequently altered into Sections 399, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

3/10

¶39

H.C.P.No.912 of 2023

¶40

4.Mr.D.Balaji, learned counsel representing Mr.W.Camyles

¶41

Gandhi, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

¶42

5 . In the final hearing today, learned counsel placed before

¶43

us the grounds booklet served on the detenu and drew our attention to page no.350 thereat which is Prisoner's Search Property Register and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

4/10

¶46

H.C.P.No.912 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/10

¶47

H.C.P.No.912 of 2023

¶48

6.Adverting to the same, learned counsel submits that the

¶49

same is not readable at all.

¶50

7.We perused the aforementioned page in the grounds

¶51

booklet and we find no reason to disagree with the learned counsel for petitioner.

¶52

8.As the aforementioned point turns on records before us,

¶53

learned Prosecutor really does not have much of a say.

¶54

9.This Court finds that the Prisoner's Search Property Register in the ground case is a very critical document and the same being furnished in a manner which is not readable has certainly impaired the rights of the detenu to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order. Such a right is a very sacrosanct right ingrained in Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India. Impairment of this right vitiates a preventive detention order leaving it liable for being dislodged in a Habeas legal drill. Following this principle, we have no hesitation in saying that the case on hand is one where the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged.

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

6/10

¶57

H.C.P.No.912 of 2023

¶58

10.Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed.

¶59

Impugned preventive detention order dated 10.05.2023 bearing reference

¶60

Cr.M.P.No.08/Goonda/2023 C1 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru. Vibul @ Santhosh, Male, aged 31 years, Son of Thiru. Ayyappan @ Ayyappankutty, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.)

¶62

13.09.2023

¶63

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking TK

¶64

P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

7/10

¶67

H.C.P.No.912 of 2023

¶68

¶69

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

¶70

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector Erode District, Erode.

¶71

3.The Superintendent of Police Erode District Erode.

¶72

4.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison – Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

¶73

5.The Inspector of Police Chithode Police Station Erode District.

¶74

6.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶75

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶76

8/10

¶77

H.C.P.No.912 of 2023

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶79

9/10

¶80

H.C.P.No.912 of 2023

¶81

M.SUNDAR, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶82

¶83

H.C.P.NO.912 OF 2023

¶84

13.09.2023

¶85

(3/6)

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶87

10/10

Manjusha v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjusha v. the Secretary to 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

Shalini Vs the Secretary to the Government

S.Lakshmi Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Vijayalakshmi Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to

Chandiran Vs the Secretary to Government

George Vs the Secretary to Government

Haseena Vs State Rep.by