Quashed

Selvi v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC14 Jun 2024HCP/263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Court set aside a detention order passed against the petitioner's son under the TN Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The department accused the detenu of being a 'Goonda' and relied on a bail-precedent. The Court quashed the order for non-application of mind and directed the release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 22.01.2024 is set aside, the writ petition is allowed, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Selvi Vs the Secretary to the Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

H.C.P.No.263 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

H.C.P.No.263 of 2024

¶9

Selvi ... Petitioner/mother of the detenue

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Ranipet District, Ranipet-1.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

5.The Inspector of Police, Rathinagiri Police Station, Ranipet District.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus,

¶18

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

¶19

Page 1 of 8

¶20

H.C.P.No.263 of 2024

¶21

to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 22.01.2024 in BC/D.O.No.01/2024 against the petitioner's son, Ajith @ Ajithkumar, Male, aged 24 years, S/o.Jawahar, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

¶23

ORDER

¶24

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶25

The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu viz., Ajith @ Ajithkumar, aged 24 years, S/o.Jawahar, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, h as come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 22.01.2024 slapped on her son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

¶26

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

¶27

Page 2 of 8

¶28

H.C.P.No.263 of 2024

¶29

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶30

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind while expressing its subjective satisfaction that the detenu is also likely to be released on bail. It is his submission that the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the present case, as the bail was granted in favour of the accused therein by recording the fact that there was no previous case as against the accused therein.

¶31

4. Upon a perusal of the Booklet, this Court finds that the detaining authority has relied on an order passed in Crl.M.P.No.11555 of 2023, subject to the satisfaction that the detenue is likely to be released on bail. In that case, the accused had no previous case; however, as per the remand report furnished to the detenue in the booklet, the detenue has five adverse cases. Therefore, the order relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be said to be similar, subject to the satisfaction vitiated and suffers from non-application of mind.

¶32

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

¶33

Page 3 of 8

¶34

H.C.P.No.263 of 2024

¶35

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of 'Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another' reported in '2011 [5] SCC 244', has dealt with a situation where the Detention Order is passed without an application of mind. In case, any of the reasons stated in the order of detention is non-existent or a material information is wrongly assumed, that will vitiate the Detention Order. When the subjective satisfaction was irrational or there was non-application of mind, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of detention is liable to be quashed. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

¶36

“10. In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number, whether the bail order was passed in respect of the co-accused in the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused being released on bail, because it is the normal practice of most courts that if a co-accused has been granted bail and his

¶37

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

¶38

Page 4 of 8

¶39

H.C.P.No.263 of 2024

¶40

case is on the same footing as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is ordinarily granted bail. However, the respondent authority should have given details about the alleged bail order in similar cases, which has not been done in the present case. A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored.

¶41

11. In our opinion, the detention order in question only contains ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of the accused coming out on bail and there was no reliable material to this effect. Hence, the detention order in question cannot be sustained. ”

¶42

6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶43

7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent in B3/D.O.No.01/2024 , dated 22.01.2024 , is hereby set aside

¶44

and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ajith @

¶45

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

¶46

Page 5 of 8

¶47

H.C.P.No.263 of 2024

¶48

Ajithkumar, aged 24 years, S/o.Jawahar, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶49

[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]

¶50

14.06.2024

¶51

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶52

Anu

¶53

¶54

1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶55

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Ranipet District, Ranipet-1.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

5.The Inspector of Police, Rathinagiri Police Station, Ranipet District.

¶59

6.The Joint Secretary,

¶60

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

¶61

Page 6 of 8

¶62

H.C.P.No.263 of 2024

¶63

Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶64

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶65

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

¶66

Page 7 of 8

¶67

H.C.P.No.263 of 2024

¶68

M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

Anu

H.C.P.No.263 of 2024

14.06.2024

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

¶73

Page 8 of 8

Selvi v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Paravakkal Vs State Rep by

Sajitha Vs State Rep by

Shoufeena Vs the Secretary to the Government

Malar Vs the State Rep. by

Nandhini Vs the Secretary to Government

Uma Vs the Secretary to the Government