High Court · 2025

HCP.No.289 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.03.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMARH.C.P.No.289 of 2025S.Sathya ... PetitionerVs.1.The Secretary to the Government Government of Tamil NaduHome, Prohibition & Excise DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai-600 0092.The District Collector and District MagistrateOffice of the District Collector and District MagistrateThiruvarur District, Thiruvarur3.The Superintendent of PoliceThiruvarur DistrictThiruvarur4.The Superintendent of Central PrisonCentral PrisonTiruchirappalli5.The Inspector of PoliceThiruthuraipoondi Police StationThiruvarur District... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the order of the 2nd respondent herein concerned in C.O.C.No52/2024 dated 19.11.2024 and quash the order of detention passed therein by the 2nd respondent herein against the detenu and directing the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu by name Murasolimaran @ Murasolikumaran, S/o.Murugan, Male aged about 33 years, residing at Meenatchivaikkal Kela Theru, Thiruthuraipoondi and Post, Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station Limit, Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thiruvarur District now detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappali before this Court and setting him at liberty forthwith.For Petitioner: Mr.S.ArivazhaganFor Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDN.SENTHILKUMAR, J.The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz. Murasolimaran @ Murasolikumaran, S/o.Murugan, aged about 33 years, detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025dated 19.11.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. 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 Government Order in G.O.(D).No.300, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 14.10.2024 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page Nos.44 to 46 of the booklet in Volume II, a copy of the Government Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025Order in G.O.(D).No.300, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 14.10.2024 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of the same has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:“9.However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language......16.For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 19.11.2024 in C.O.C.No.52/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Murasolimaran @ Murasolikumaran, S/o.Murugan, aged about 33 years, detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 17.03.2025kasIndex: Yes/NoNeutral CitationkasTo1.The Secretary to the Government Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025Government of Tamil NaduHome, Prohibition & Excise DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai-600 0092.The District Collector and District MagistrateOffice of the District Collector and District MagistrateThiruvarur District, Thiruvarur3.The Superintendent of PoliceThiruvarur DistrictThiruvarur4.The Superintendent of Central PrisonCentral PrisonTiruchirappalli5.The Inspector of PoliceThiruthuraipoondi Police StationThiruvarur District6.The Public ProsecutorHigh Court of MadrasChennai 600 104Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andN.SENTHILKUMAR, J.kasH.C.P.No.289 of 202517.03.2025Page 8 of 8

HCP.No.289 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 17.03.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMARH.C.P.No.289 of 2025S.Sathya ... PetitionerVs.1.The Secretary to the Government Government of Tamil NaduHome, Prohibition & Excise DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai-600 0092.The District Collector and District MagistrateOffice of the District Collector and District MagistrateThiruvarur District, Thiruvarur3.The Superintendent of PoliceThiruvarur DistrictThiruvarur4.The Superintendent of Central PrisonCentral PrisonTiruchirappalli5.The Inspector of PoliceThiruthuraipoondi Police StationThiruvarur District... RespondentsPage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the order of the 2nd respondent herein concerned in C.O.C.No52/2024 dated 19.11.2024 and quash the order of detention passed therein by the 2nd respondent herein against the detenu and directing the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu by name Murasolimaran @ Murasolikumaran, S/o.Murugan, Male aged about 33 years, residing at Meenatchivaikkal Kela Theru, Thiruthuraipoondi and Post, Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station Limit, Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Thiruvarur District now detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappali before this Court and setting him at liberty forthwith.For Petitioner: Mr.S.ArivazhaganFor Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John ORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.ANDN.SENTHILKUMAR, J.The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz. Murasolimaran @ Murasolikumaran, S/o.Murugan, aged about 33 years, detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025dated 19.11.2024 slapped on her husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. 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 Government Order in G.O.(D).No.300, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 14.10.2024 has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in Page Nos.44 to 46 of the booklet in Volume II, a copy of the Government Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025Order in G.O.(D).No.300, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 14.10.2024 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version of the same has not been furnished to the detenu. Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:“9.However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language......16.For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 19.11.2024 in C.O.C.No.52/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Murasolimaran @ Murasolikumaran, S/o.Murugan, aged about 33 years, detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 17.03.2025kasIndex: Yes/NoNeutral CitationkasTo1.The Secretary to the Government Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025Government of Tamil NaduHome, Prohibition & Excise DepartmentFort St. GeorgeChennai-600 0092.The District Collector and District MagistrateOffice of the District Collector and District MagistrateThiruvarur District, Thiruvarur3.The Superintendent of PoliceThiruvarur DistrictThiruvarur4.The Superintendent of Central PrisonCentral PrisonTiruchirappalli5.The Inspector of PoliceThiruthuraipoondi Police StationThiruvarur District6.The Public ProsecutorHigh Court of MadrasChennai 600 104Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP.No.289 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andN.SENTHILKUMAR, J.kasH.C.P.No.289 of 202517.03.2025Page 8 of 8