Madrasdated High Court · 2007

manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds ofdetention dated 16.12.2006 were served on 20.12.2006. Such groundsindicate that the detenu and two other persons, namely, Tvl.ThangaMuthu.Krishnan and Ganapathi Ravi who belong to Hindu Makkal Katchi andSiva Sena political party were standing at the entrance of the GovernmentEstate surrounded by about 25 members of public. Two persons, namely,Tvl.Srinivasan and Dayalan were proceeding in the opposite direction.Thiru Thanga.Muthukrishnan came out of the crowd and caught hold of thehand of Thiru Srinivasan by saying,"eP';fs; ,UtUk; epy;Y';fs;. ehd; brhy;tij nfS';fs;. ,e;jnehl;Oi! goa[';fs;/"(Both of you wait. Listen my words. Read this notice-English translation)and also handed over pamphlets to both Tvl.Srinivasan and Dayalan. It isfurther stated that Tvl.Thanga.Muthukrishnan and Ganapathy Ravi issuedsuch pamphlets also to others who are at the spot. It is further statedthat the detenu addressed the gathering by saying,"_u';fj;jpy; mu';fehjh; nfhapy; Kd;g[ bghpahh; rpiyiaitj;Js;shh;fs;/ ,nj nghy; jpuhtplh; fHfk; fl;rpapdh; jkpH;ehl;oy;v';fhtJ xU kNjp my;yJ fpU!;Jt rh;r; Kd;[g[ bghpahh; rpiyia itf;fKoa[kh. mg;go xU rpiyia jp/f/fhud; btr;rhd;dh me;j K!;ypk;fSk;.fpU!;Jth;fSk; nrh;e;J jkpH;ehl;oy; cs;s mj;jid bghpahh; rpiyfisa[k;moj;J cilj;J tpLthh;fs;/" jp/f/ fl;rpfhuh;fisa[k; btl;o bfhiy bra;JtpLthh;fs;"(Further Thiru Jaishankar addressed the gathering by saying "Periyarstatue was installed in front of Srirangam Ranganathar Temple. Like thiscan the Dravidar Kazhagam install Periyar statue either in front of aMosque or a Church; if such a statue was installed by D.K.activists, thatMuslims and Christians joined together would break and destroy all thePeriyar statue in Tamil Nadu and would also murder all theD.K.activists."-English translation) He further warned the StateGovernment by saying,"tUfpw 16k; njjp _u';fj;jpy; tPukzp jiyikapy; jp/f/khehLelj;Jtjw;F muR mDkjp bfhLf;f TlhJ/ mDkjp bfhLj;jhy; ehk;vy;nyhUk; m';F jpuz;L brd;W fytuj;jpy; <Lgl;L ,!;yhkpah;fs; cw$;ahj;jpiuapd; nghJ bkf;fhtpy; cs;s rhj;jhd; kPJ vg;go fy; vwpfpwhh;fnsh.Rghpkiy Iag;gd; nfhtpYf;F bry;Yk;nghJ ,e;Jf;fs; vg;go ru';Fj;jpapy;cs;s rhj;jhd; kPJ fy; vwpfpwhh;fnsh mnj nghy; ehKk; _u';fj;jpy; cs;s bghpahh; rpiy kPJ fy;bywpe;J me;j rpiyia cilj;JbehWf;f ntz;Lk;." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (He further warned the State Government by saying "The Government shouldnot give permission to the Dravidar Kazhagam headed by Veeramani to holdconference on the coming 16th at Srirangam. If permission is granted weall should assemble there and indulge in violence and like Muslims throwstones at Sathan at Mecca during Huj pilgrimage and has Sabarimaladevotees throw stones at Sathan in Sarankuthi (on the way to Sabarimala),we should throw stones at Periyar statue and that statue should bedestroyed.-English translation). Thereafter, Thiru Srinivasan lodged a complaint at D7, Government EstatePolice Station, Chennai City against the detenu, Thanga.Muthukrishnan andGanapathi Ravi enclosing the pamphlets requesting the police to takeaction. The Inspector of Police, D7, Government Estate police stationregistered Cr.No.120/2006 u/s 341, 153(A), 505(1)(b) and (c) and 505(2)IPC and the Inspector of Police seized the pamphlets produced by the saidThiru Srinivasan and investigation was taken up by the AssistantCommissioner of Police. The Assistant Commissioner visited the spot andprepared rough sketch and observation mahazar and examined witnesses andrecorded their statements. The detenu was arrested on 11.12.2006 at 20.45hours at Central Railway Station, Chennai and was examined. Hisconfessional statement was recorded. At the time of arrest it was alsofound that the detenu was in possession of 10 sets of such pamphlets whichwas seized under cover of Mahazar. Further interrogation revealed thatsubsequent to the damage of the Periyar statue at Srirangam in front ofthe Sri Aranganathar temple, the detenu prepared pamphlets instigating thegeneral public to indulge in acts of violence and stated,"jpuhtplh; fHfk; fl;rpapdh; jkpH;ehl;oy; v';fhtJ xU kNjp my;yJfpU!;Jt rh;r; Kd;[g[ bghpahh; rpiyia itf;f Koa[kh. mg;go xU rpiyiajp/f/fhud; btr;rhd;dh me;j K!;ypk;fSk;. fpU!;Jth;fSk; nrh;e;JjkpH;ehl;oy; cs;s mj;jid bghpahh; rpiyfisa[k; moj;J cilj;JtpLthh;fs;/ jp/f/ fl;rpfhuh;fisa[k; btl;o bfhiy bra;J tpLthh;fs;"(can the Dravidar Kazhagam install Periyar statue either in front of aMosque or a Church; if such a statue was installed by D.K.activists, thatMuslims and Christians joined together would break and destroy all thePeriyar statue in Tamil Nadu and would also murder all the D.K.activists.-English translation)and the detenu deliberately issued provocative statement with intention tocreate clashes between Dravida Kazhagam who are the non-believers of godand the Hindu believers in God and also to promote enmity between religiongroups namely Hindus and Muslims and Hindus and Christians and to createchaos and confusion in the State and thereby acted in a manner prejudicialto the maintenance of public order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The grounds of detention further disclose the detenu also conductedpress meet at the Press Club at Government Estate on 11.12.2006, releasedpamphlets and distributed press note to the press personnel and asked themto give wide publicity. The press note contains the following:"1/ bghpahh; rpiyia itf;f mDkjp mspj;j jkpHf Kjy;th; xU Fw;wthsp/2/ rpiyia itf;f ,ilf;fhy jil tH';fhj ePjpkd;wk; xU Fw;wthsp/3/ rh;r; kw;Wk; kNjp Kd;g[ bghpahh; rpiyia itf;fj; jahuh vdkj';fSf;Fs; rz;ilia K:l;o tpl;L mjd; K:yk; jkpHfj;jpy;FHg;gj;jpid cz;lhf;Fjy;/"(1.The Chief Minister is an accused because he permitted to install thePeriyar statue.2.The court also accused because it did not grant interim injunctionagainst installation.3.Creating confusion in Tamil Nadu by inciting clash between religions byasking whether the status could be installed in front of Church andMosque.-English translation) It is further recited thus the detenu had deliberately issued thestatement solely with intention to disturb the public peace and communalharmony in the peaceful State. Further in the press note, he went to theextent of criticizing the judicial system and accused the Hon'ble Courtsince the Hon'ble Court had not granted stay for the unveiling of thestatue of Periyar at Srirangam. In paragraph 3 of the grounds of detentionit is further stated as under:"3.Hence I am satisfied that Tr.Jaishankar issuedobjectionable notices and conducted press conference andfurther addressed the gathering and induced them to indulgein acts of violence among the Religions and tried to disturbcommunal harmony and to create communial clash leading tothe disturbance of public tranquility and thereby affectingthe maintenance of public order in the State. Further areading of the pamphlets reveals that " jpuhtplh; fHfk;fl;rpapdh; jkpH;ehl;oy; v';fhtJ xU kNjp my;yJ fpU!;Jt rh;r; Kd;[g[ bghpahh; rpiyia itf;f Koa[kh. mg;go xU rpiyia jp/f/fhud;btr;rhd;dh me;j K!;ypk;fSk;. fpU!;Jth;fSk; nrh;e;J jkpH;ehl;oy;cs;s mj;jid bghpahh; rpiyfisa[k; moj;J cilj;J tpLthh;fs;/ jp/f/fl;rpfhuh;fisa[k; btl;o bfhiy bra;J tpLthh;fs;(Further a reading of the pamphlets reveals that can the Dravidar Kazhagaminstall Periyar statue either in front of a Mosque or a Church; if such astatue was installed by D.K.activists, that Muslims and Christians joinedtogether would break and destroy all the Periyar statue in Tamil Nadu andwould also murder all the D.K.activists'-English translation) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and this will encourage the innocent public to indulge in acts ofviolence.Further he uttered the words"tUfpw 16k; njjp _u';fj;jpy; tPukzp jiyikapy; jp/f/khehL elj;Jtjw;FmuR mDkjp bfhLf;f TlhJ/ mDkjp bfhLj;jhy; ehk; vy;nyhUk; m';Fjpuz;L brd;W fytuj;jpy; <Lgl;L ,!;yhkpah;fs; cw$; ahj;jpiuapd;nghJ bkf;fhtpy; cs;s rhj;jhd; kPJ vg;go fy; vwpfpwhh;fnsh. RghpkiyIag;gd; nfhtpYf;F bry;Yk;nghJ ,e;Jf;fs; vg;go ru';Fj;jpapy; cs;srhj;jhd; kPJ fy; vwpfpwhh;fnsh mnj nghy; ehKk; _u';fj;jpy; cs;s bghpahh; rpiy kPJ fy;bywpe;J me;j rpiyia cilj;JbehWf;f ntz;Lk;/"(Further he uttered the words "the Government should not give permissionto the Dravidar Kazhagam headed by Veeramani to hold conference on thecoming 16th at Srirangam. If permission is granted we all should assemblethere and indulge in violence and like Muslims throw stones at Sathan atMecca during Huj pilgrimage and has sabarimala devotees throw stones atSathan in Sarankuthi (on the way to Sabarimala), we should throw stones atPeriyar statue and that statue should be destroyed.-English translation)(Translated version as indicated in this order is furnished by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner.)3.It appears that before the order of detention was passed,the wife of the detenu addressed a letter dated 14.12.2006 to theCommissioner of Police, the detaining authority and the same is extractedhereunder:"Respected Sir,My husband G.S.Jaishankar, was arrested at Chennai. Icame to know about this proposed bitten him under NSA. Thisinformation I came to only through media report. So for Iwas not communicated of the arrested my husband. Theallegation against him ANE false and politically motivated.Signly withdrawn the case against him.Yours sincerelysd/-14.12.06(J.GEETHA)" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (counsel now expresses that the word 'bitten' was atypographical mistake and the correct word was `to detain'.)It is not in dispute that such letter was received by the Commissioner on18.12.2006 by which date the order of detention had already been signed.However, the detention order was served and executed on 18.12.2006. Itappears that on 23.12.2006 the present petitioner who is the wife of thedetenu sent a representation to the State Government as well as to theCommissioner praying for revocation of the order of detention. It furtherappears that the detenu himself sent a representation dated 23.12.2006through the Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Chennai addressed tothe Commissioner of Police. The English translation of such document hasbeen filed as part of the additional typed set of papers by thepetitioner. Such representation by the detenu is extracted in extensohereunder."From23.12.2006S.JaishankarPreventive Detenue(NSA)Central Prison, PuzhalChennai.Thru'The SuperintendentCentral PrisonChennaiToThe Commissioner of PoliceChennai CityEgmore,ChennaiVanakkamI came to know at 2.30 p.m. on 18.12.2006 about my detentionunder NSA vide your order dated 16.12.2006.I want to make a detailed representation to set aside thedetention order, for which I need the following documents:1.It was stated that pamphlet was circulated on11.12.2006, which contained "can the Dravidar KazhagamActivists install Periyar Statue in front of either Mosqueor Church in Tamil Nadu". If Dravidar Kazhagam activistsinstall a statue, the Muslims and Christians will jointogether and would break and destroy all the Periyarstatutes in Tamil Nadu. Further, they would cut and murderthe Dravidar Kazhagam people. The aforesaid pamphlet wasnot supplied to me in the booklet furnished to me. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, I may be given the copy of the aforesaidpamphlet.2.Other than the aforesaid pamphlet I may also be given acopy of the press statement, which was said to have beenreleased in the press conference, which was addressed by me.3.It was also stated that a confession statement has beenobtained from me. Give me the copy of the said confessionstatement of me.4.While I was produced before the XIII MetropolitanMagistrate, Egmore, I had said that "I was arrested in thepress conference". The Magistrate had made note of that andobtained my signature. Give me the copy of the order, whichcontained the endorsement of the Learned Magistrate.4A.Copy of the representation of my wife dated 14.12.2006,which was sent by my wife.5.Pursuant to my arrest on 11.12.2006 a press statementwas issued by the Commissioner of Police and the DirectorGeneral of Police on the same night wherein it was statedthat "I am going to be detained in NSA". I may be given acopy of the press statement issued through the PoliceDepartment on 11.12.2006.6.It was stated that my bail application is pendingbefore the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate and the same courthad granted bail in similar cases, there is a possibilitythat I would be granted bail hence, the detention isnecessary. Therefore, furnish the copies of the orders thatwere granted by the said court in similar matters in thelast one year.7.Few witnesses (Nandakumar, Azad, Mohan and Arumugham)have given statement that was furnished in the booklet. Itcontained that they came to know by reading the newspapersthat "I addressed to the press conference that news hasappeared in news papers and by such an news I have incitedviolence among Hindus, Christians and Muslims and createdfear and attempted to create communal violence in the Stateby which attempted to de-establish the State and withintention of creating communal violence by which everyonewould attack each other". Therefore, furnish me the copiesof the newspapers that were said to have published my pressconference, which had the tenor of creating violence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The above said documents may kindly be furnish immediatelyeither to me or to my wife.Yours sincerely,sd/-S.Jaishankar."4.On 26.12.2006 the Government issued an order approving theorder of detention and subsequently on the basis of the recommendation ofthe Advisory Board, the order of detention was confirmed by the State byorder dated 2.3.2007. The post-detention representation sent by the wifeof the detenu was rejected by the Government on 5.1.2007. The pre-detention representation made by the wife of the detenu which had alreadybeen extracted in extenso was replied to by the Commissioner of Police on30.12.2006. The reply is extracted hereunder:"That the detenue was detained under preventivedetention to prevent him from indulging into activities thatare prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Your wife Mrs.Geetha was informed about your arrest byway of telegram on 11.12.2006 itself and by 18.12.2006registered letter she was also communicated about yourpreventive detention."A representation dated 23.12.2006 made by the detenu himself which hasalready been extracted seeking for several documents was replied to by theState Government on 14.2.2007. The English translation of such documentis available as part of the additional typed set. The entire reply dated14.2.2007 is extracted hereunder:"The representation dated 27.12.2006 addressed to theCommissioner of Police, sent thru' the Superintendent,Central Prison, Chennai to make representation against thedetention order made under National Security Act, 1980 wascarefully considered by the Government. Since therepresentation was not acceptable, I hereby inform you thatthe said representation is rejected by the Government.2.Pamphlet, Confession Statement and Remand Order arealready furnished to you in page numbers 5 to 6, 44 and 56to 57 respectively in the paper book supplied to you. Ifurther inform you that the Inspector of Police has notgiven any press statement with regard to your arrest on11.12.2006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.All the documents that were relied upon for thedetention, had already been furnished to you. Therefore, Iinform you that there is no necessity to furnish documentsto you." 5.In the abovesaid factual matrix, the learned counsel for thepetitioner has raised the following contentions:(i)The detaining authority has mechanically passed the order ofdetention without application of mind inasmuch as the detaining authorityhas not gone through the so called press note relied upon in internal page3 of the grounds of detention. Similarly, the detaining authority hasnot gone through the so called pamphlet relied upon in paragraph 3 of thegrounds of detention.(ii)Even assuming that the detaining authority has gone through anysuch materials, the protection guaranteed under Article 22(5) has not beencomplied with inasmuch as the copy of the press note and the pamphletavailable in the booklet furnished to the detenu did not contain therecital to the following effect."1.The Chief Minister is an accused because he permitted toinstall the Periyar statue.2.The court also accused because it did not grant interiminjunction against installation.3.Creating confusion in Tamil Nadu by inciting clash betweenreligions by asking whether the statue could be installed infront of Church and Mosque."(iii)Even though the detenu had made a specific request forfurnishing such press note which contains the recited portion (in pageNo.3 and the pamphlets which contain the portion recited in page 4paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention which have already been extracted)were not furnished to the detenu and a mechanical reply was given and thattoo after a long lapse of time on 2.3.2007 stating that all the documentshad been furnished.By the above process the detenu was deprived of anopportunity of making effective representation.(iv)The representation sent by the wife of the detenu before passingof the order of detention was also not considered by application of mindand on the other hand, a mechanical reply was given by the detainingauthority.(v)The order of detention has been passed in a pre-determined mannerinasmuch as on 11.12.2006 itself even before there was any proposal by thesponsoring authority for passing any order of detention, the detainingauthority herself has issued a press release which appeared in all thenewspapers on 12.12.2006 indicating that it had already been decided to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detain the detenu under the National Security Act which would indicatethat the detaining authority has proceeded in a pre-determined manner.6.In the counter affidavit filed, nothing is indicated aboutthe existence of the press note which was purportedly relied upon by thedetaining authority as apparent from recital in page 3 of the grounds ofdetention. The extracted portions specifically indicate that thedetaining authority had relied upon the fact that the press note hadcontained several statements which have been extracted. But, it nowtranspires no such press note was available before the detainingauthority. This would indicate non-application of mind on the part of thedetaining authority. Similarly, the further recital in paragraph 3 of thegrounds of detention to the following effect. "Further a reading of the pamphlets reveals that " can theDravidar Kazhagam install Periyar statue either in front ofa Mosque or a Church; if such a statue was installed byD.K.activists, that Muslims and Christians joined togetherwould break and destroy all the Periyar statue in Tamil Naduand would also murder all the D.K.activists." also appears to be based on non-existent material as now it is conceded bythe learned counsel for the State that the pamphlets so available at pages5 and 6 of the booklet do not contain such extracted portion. Thosematerials were not before the detaining authority and yet the detainingauthority has purported to rely upon such materials. This would indicatenon-application of mind to the materials on record. On the other hand,if such materials were there and had been relied upon, as required underArticle 22(5) the detaining authority should have furnished the copies ofsuch materials to enable the detenu to make a representation. In eithercase the order of detention can be stated to be vitiated either becausethere is non-application of mind or there is no compliance with therequirement of Constitution under Article 22(5).7.In this context it is also to be noticed that the detenuhimself had made a specific representation on 23.12.2006 which apparentlywas received on 27.12.2006 wherein the detenu had specifically requestedthe authorities to furnish the copies of the press note relied upon inpage 3 of the grounds of detention and the pamphlets containing theextracted portions which had been specifically relied upon in paragraph 3in page 4 of the grounds of detention. Such representation was simplyrejected by saying that the copies of the documents were furnished andthe copies of the documents were available at pages 5 and 6 of the bookletalready served on the detenue.8.We have repeatedly called upon the learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor to point out from pages 5 and 6 regarding such recitalin paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention which have been extracted inearlier part of paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention. But, the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Additional Public Prosecutor has stated that though the said extractedportion was not available in the pamphlets at pages 5 and 6 of thebooklet, such recital is available in the complaint made by ThiruSrinivasan and 161 statement which are available in the booklet. Thisexplanation given for the first time was not reflected in the reply to therepresentation dated 23.12.2006 received on 27.12.2006 nor a whisper hasbeen made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 9.We are afraid that such belated explanation furnished incourse of hearing of this petition cannot come to the help of the State.It is apparent while passing the detention order the detaining authorityhas simply extracted some materials from here and there withoutunderstanding the background of such statement which would obviouslyindicate the non-application of mind on the part of the detainingauthority.10.The order of preventive detention has the effect ofcurtailing the liberty of a citizen of India and therefore, theauthorities vested with such wide powers are required to bestow carefulattention to the relevant materials on record and it is not expected thatsuch an order would be passed in a cavalier fashion without properlyreferring to the relevant materials. In our opinion, the order ofdetention is vitiated on account of such non-application of mind andfurther by the fact when a specific representation was made, a clearposition was not indicated to the detenu. When a representation was madeseeking for those documents, atleast the authorities should have explainedthe matter by saying that there was no such pamphlets containing theextracted words nor there was any such press note containing suchexpression and such materials were available in the statement of someother witnesses. 11.Apart from the above, the fact that the representation ofthe detenu seeking for such some documents for the purpose of making arepresentation has remained pending till 2.3.2007, that is to say, for aperiod of more than two months itself is shocking. If such documents werenot available the authorities should have given a reply much earlier sothat the detenu could have pursued his remedies or could have made anotherrepresentation. By keeping silent on the request made by the detenuregarding furnishing of some documents which on the face of it appeared tobe quite relevant itself has the effect of vitiating the order ofdetention inasmuch as the detenu is not afforded the earliest opportunityof making representation as contemplated in Article 22 of the Constitutionof India.12.It is also contended that the order of detention has beenpassed by the Commissioner of Police in a pre-determined manner withoutindependent application of mind. The learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that in paragraph 5 of the representation dated 23.12.2006received on 27.12.2006 it had been specifically stated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "5.Pursuant to my arrest on 11.12.2006 a pressstatement was issued by the Commissioner of Police and theDirector General of Police on the same night wherein it wasstated that "I am going to be detained in NSA". I may begiven a copy of the press statement issued through thePolice Department on 11.12.2006." 13.In course of hearing of this matter we have pointedly askedthe learned Additional Public Prosecutor as to whether such a pressstatement has been issued through Police Department on 11.12.2006 and thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor was constrained to admit the factthat such a press statement was issued through Police Department.Further, it is surprising to note that in the reply to such representation it has been indicated,"I further inform you that the Inspector of Police hasnot given any press statement with regard to your arrest on11.12.2006." This only indicates that the authority who replied was either very cleveror naive. In the representation, the detenu had specifically made arequest about press statement of the Director General of Police and theCommissioner of Police (Commissioner of Police is the detainingauthority). The detenu wanted a copy of the press statement. The replyindicates as if no such press statement has been made by the Inspector ofPolice, but the reply is completely silent about the press statement madeby the Commissioner and no reason is given as to why such copy could notbe made available to the detenu. Since the issuance of such pressstatement is no longer in dispute, as the learned Additional PublicProsecutor has been constrained to admit that such press statement wasissued on 11.12.2006 which appeared in newspapers on 12.12.2006, it isapparent that the order of detention dated 16.12.2007 is an outcome of thepre-determined opinion of the Police Department and not on the basis ofindependent assessment of factual scenario. It is no doubt true that thedetaining authority has passed the order on the basis of subjectivesatisfaction. But that does not mean that the detaining authority shouldnot have an open mind and he should proceed in a pre-determined manner.In the background of materials indicating non-application of mind which wehave already referred to, this aspect also assumes more significance.14.Apart from the above, it is not disputed that acommunication was sent by the wife of the detenu on 14.12.2006 which wasreceived admittedly on 18.12.2006. The reply which had already beenextracted simply indicates about the fact that the arrest of the detenuhad been communicated. However, nothing is indicated about the otheraspects highlighted in such letter. It is no doubt true that suchrepresentation was received after the order of detention had been made on16.12.2006 in which event, the detaining authority should have considered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such representation for the purpose of examining as to whether the orderof detention is to be revoked by the detaining authority himself which iscontemplated in the statutory provision. It is well known that before theapproval from the State Government the detaining authority himself has thejurisdiction to revoke the order of detention. In the letter written bythe wife of the detenu it had been indicated that the detenu had beenfalsely implicated. The detaining authority should have considered suchmatter. Even assuming that the detaining authority could not considersuch matter before the order of approval by the Government it was the dutyof the detaining authority to place such matters before the StateGovernment so that before the approval or at any rate, before theconfirmation of the order, the State Government would have had the libertyof going through such pre-detention representation. This would also havethe effect of vitiating the order of detention as has been held in severaldecisions of this Court.15.Apart from the above, the learned counsel for thepetitioner also contended there are several contradictions appearing inthe recitals of the grounds of detention and there was no necessity forpassing order of detention. However, since we are quashing the order ofdetention it is not necessary to deal with such contentions.16.The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. Impugned order ofdetention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at libertyforthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsalTo1.The SecretaryPublic (Law & Order-G)DepartmentSecretariat, Chennai 600 0092.The Commissioner of PoliceGreater ChennaiEgmore, Chennai 600 006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Superintendent,Central Prison, Chennai.4. The Joint Secretary to Government,Public (Law and Order)Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.5. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.Su. Srinivasan, Advocate, SR.26072.H.C.P.No.110/2007PV(CO)RVL 13.06.2007