CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The District Collector and District Magistrate Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram.2. The Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10.12.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIH.C.P.Nos.1361, 1362, 1363, 1364 and 1427 of 2007Vasuki.. Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1361/2007V.M.Selvaraj.. Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1362/2007J.Florence.. Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1363/2007Rajamanickam.. Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1364/2007Janaki.. Petitioner in H.C.P.No.1427/2007Vs.1. The District Collector and District Magistrate Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram.2. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9... Respondents in all the petitionsPRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of thedetention order in BDFGISSV.Nos.48, 50, 49, 46 and 47 of 2007, dated24.7.2007 passed by the first respondent, to quash the same and to directthe respondents to produce the detenus viz., Kothandan, son of Ramu,Prasath, son of Selvaraj, Joswa James Premkumar, son of Gopal, Ega @Egambaram, son of Rajamanickam and Raja @ Ceasing Raja, son of Narasimman,now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and toset them at liberty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : M/s.Ganesh & GaneshFor Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public ProsecutorCOMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)All the Habeas Corpus Petitions filed on behalf of the detenus wereheard together and are being disposed of by this common order, as thebasic allegations are common. 2. The first respondent herein clamped orders of detention as againstthe detenus as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfactionthat the said detenus are Goondas and they have to be detained underSection 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities ofBootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral TrafficOffenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Challenging the abovesaid detention orders,the present Habeas Corpus Petitions are filed by the relatives of thedetenus.3.1. The order of detention dated 24.7.2007 came to be passed basedon the ground case said to have taken place on 22.6.2007 at about 17.45hours, when one Parthiban, who was in-charge of a Cool Drinks Stallsituated at Guduvancherry bazzaar, was doing his work, the detenus alongwith his associates came in two cars under the guidance of one Guna @Gunasekaran by possessing weapons like aruva, patta knife, wooden logs andapprehended the complainant within the shop and robbed Rs.1100/- from him.On hearing the hue and cry, the public rushed to the spot and they werethreatened by the detenus and his associates at the point of knife andcountry bombs by uttering that they would do away them. The public ranhither and thither apprehending danger to their lives and the nearby shopswere closed, resulting in traffic dislocation. Due to the atrociousactivities, the normalcy in that area got dislocated and terror and panicwas created. In the melee, the detenus and his associates escaped fromthe spot. Based on the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.331of 2007 on the file of Guduvancheri Police Station for the offencespunishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506(ii), 395, 397 IPC read withSections 3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section25 (1)(a) (1)(b) of the Arms Act. The Inspector of Police took up thecase for investigation and arrested the detenus and remanded them tojudicial custody. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.2. The second respondent, taking the above case as a ground caseand three adverse cases pending against the detenus in Crime Nos.327 and328 of 2007 on the file of Guduvancheri Police Station and CrimeNo.364/2007 on the file of Maraimalai Nagar Police Station for theoffences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 363, 384, 506(ii), 397and 307 IPC, having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity todetain the detenus in order to prevent them from indulging in theactivities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order,ordered their detention dubbing them as Goondas. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners isthat the detention of the detenus was not communicated to their familymembers.5. We have perused the materials available on record. In the groundsof detention, it is stated that the detenus were arrested on 22.6.2007,produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 23.6.2007 for remand and thearrest of the detenus was intimated to the family members of the detenuson the same day by telegram. But, the detaining authority, admittedly,has not enclosed copy of the telegram, wherein the arrest of the detenuswas alleged to have been intimated to the relatives of the respectivedetenus, in the paper book furnished to the detenus. 6. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor byproducing the receipts for sending telegrams submits that the arrest andthe place of detention of the detenus were promptly communicated to therelatives of the detenus. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced only thereceipts for sending telegram. Neither the contents of the telegram, northe address to which the telegram was sent were produced before thisCourt. A mere receipt for sending telegram without producing the contentsor the address to which it was sent will not be a substantial evidence toprove that the family members of the detenus were informed about thedetention of the detenus and their place of detention.8. The object and purpose of informing the members of the detenu'shousehold in writing of the passing of the order of detention and takingin custody of the detenu as also the place of detention immediately afterthe detenu is taken in custody pursuant to the order, is that the familymembers of the detenu should not be kept in darkness by withholding theinformation about the passing of the order of detention and the place ofdetention thereby preventing them from having any access and fromrendering any help or assistance to the detenu and similarly the detenushould not be deprived of the privilege of meeting his relations andgetting any help or assistance, vide Union of India v. Vasanbharathi,[1990] 2 SCC 275. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. In the cases on hand, no material was produced before us tojustify that the family members of the detenus have been informed aboutthe detention of the detenus and their place of detention. If that be so,the orders of detention are vitiated. These petitions must succeed andthe same are ordered as prayed for. The detention orders dated 24.7.2007are set aside. The detenus are directed to be set at liberty forthwithunless their custody is required in connection with any other case.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarATRTo:1. The District Collector and District Magistrate Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram.2. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9.3. The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.4. The Joint Secretary to Government,Public (Law and Order)Fort St.George, Chennai -9.5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.10 cc To M/s.Ganesh & Ganesh, Advocate, SR.72990 to 72995.HCP Nos.1361 to 1364 & 1427/2007 NSM(CO)RVL 26.12.2007