M. Kasinathan v. District Collector, Thiruvarur).In that decision, the said Division Bench, relyin
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Now, in the light of the above position, we verified thematerials placed. It is true that the order dated 30.09.2005 isavailable in the paper book. It shows that the same was sent to thedetaining authority. However, as rightly pointed out there is nocovering letter…
Judgment
In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated:18.04.2006Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAMandThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMARHabeas Corpus Petition No.58 of 2006 Chellamuthu .. Petitionervs.
The District Magistrate & District Collector Perambalur District Perambalur.
The Secretary to Govt., of Tamil Nadu Prohibition & Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus directing therespondents to produce the detenu namely Padaiyappa @ Marudupondy @Marudupondian, Son of Marudhamuthu, before this Court who is detainedas per the order of detention passed by the first respondent in Crl.M.P.No.40/2005 dated 30.9.2005 and confined at Central Prison, Trichy and set him at liberty and further direction to call for therecords relating to the abovesaid order and quash the same. For petitioner : Mr. K. ManivasakamFor respondents : Mr. Abudukumar Rajaratrhinam Govt., Advocate (Crl.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)The petitioner by name Chellamuthu, challenges the impugnedorder of detention dated 30.09.2005, detaining her brotherPadaiyappa @ Marudupondy @ Marudu Pondian, as "Boot-Legger" under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, ImmoralTraffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil NaduAct 14 of 1982"). 2. Heard both sides.
The learned counsel for the petitioner at the foremostsubmitted that the earlier bail order dated 08.09.2005 was sent to thedetaining authority by way of additional affidavit dated 29.09.2005.Inasmuch as the second dismissal order dated 30.09.2005 thoughavailable in the paper book (page 76), there is no explanation how thesaid document was sent to the detaining authority. According to him, in the absence of a covering letter or additional affidavit withreference to the said document, viz., dismissal of bail petition dated30.09.2005, the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority isliable to be quashed. In support of the above contention, he reliedon an un-reported decision of this Court dated 21.12.1999 made inHCP.No.875 of 1999 (M. Kasinathan vs. District Collector, Thiruvarur).In that decision, the said Division Bench, relying on an earlierdecision in HCP.No.1298 of 1998, after finding that whenever anysubsequent document is forwarded tot he detaining authority by thesponsoring authority subsequent to the filing of his affidavit, thesame should be accompanied by a covering letter / additionalaffidavit, failing which the order of detention cannot be sustained, allowed the habeas corpus petition and set aside the order ofdetention.
Now, in the light of the above position, we verified thematerials placed. It is true that the order dated 30.09.2005 isavailable in the paper book. It shows that the same was sent to thedetaining authority. However, as rightly pointed out there is nocovering letter or additional affidavit forwarding the said orderdated 30.09.2005. It is not in dispute that even in the affidavitdated 29.09.2005, there is no reference to the order dated 30.09.2005.Obviously it cannot be, since the same was passed subsequent to theadditional affidavit dated 29.09.2005. In the light of the abovefactual position and in view of the decision relied on by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, we accept the contention raised by thelearned counsel for the petitioner. On this ground, the impugneddetention order is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order of detention impugned in the petition is set aside and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custodyunless he is required in connection with any other case. KhSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarTo1. The District Magistrate & District Collector Perambalur District Perambalur.2. The Secretary to Govt., of Tamil Nadu Prohibition & Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 3. The Joint Secretary to Govt., Public (Law and Order) Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.1 cc to Mr.K.Manivasagam, Advocate, SR.19666jrg (co)dv/24.4.06 H.C.P.No.58 of 2006
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.