Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- N PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theimpugned Detention Order passed by the second respondent, in hisproceedings in Cr
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above undisputed facts, which are borne out by records, the impugned order of detention cannot be continued hereafter, as the confirmation order was passed without giving copies of the order of remand and remand extension order. 6. In the result…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 21.02.2012CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASSHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD).No.1139 of 2011 Guru @ Gurunathan : PetitionerVs.
The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
The District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District.
The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai. : RespondentsPRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.33 of2011, dated 02.12.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenue namely, J.Guru @ Gurunathan,S/o.Jothinathan, aged about 30 years detained in Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.R.AlagumaniFor Respondents: Mr.A.RamarAdditional Public ProsecutorO R D E R***********[Order of the Court was made by N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J]This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the detenu, who has been detained as a "Goonda" under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, on the orders of the second respondent, by his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.33 of 2011, dated 02.12.2011.
Now, he has been lodged at Central Prison, Madurai.2. Even though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas CorpusPetition, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the order of remand and remand extension order were not placed before the Detaining Authority and copies of the said orders, even though were requested by the detenu, by sending a representation on 07.12.2011 before the Detaining Authority, the same were not furnished for giving effective https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2representation before the Advisory Board. The learned counsel also submitted that the Advisory Board meeting was held on 10.01.2012 and copies of the order of remand and remand extension order were given only on 28.01.2012, i.e., after the Advisory Board meeting. Therefore, thedetenu was prevented from making an effective submission before the Advisory Board, pursuant to which, the first respondent passed the confirmation order in G.O.Ms.No.279, Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI),Department, dated 20.01.2012. The copies of the order of remand and remand extension order were furnished only on 25.01.2012 and the same were served on the detenu through Jailer, Central Prison, Madurai.3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents also.
A similar issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Courtin the decision in Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007 (2) MLJ(Crl) 639, wherein, the Division Bench, following the earlier Judgment ofa Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Shenbagam vs. DistrictMagistrate, Sivagangai District and another reported in 2005 (2) CTC 476,in Paragraph No.9, held thus:-"9. In yet another decision of Shenbagam vs. District Collector and District Magistrate, SivagangaiDistrict and another, 2005 (2) CTC 476 remand order dated 13.08.2004 was placed before the DetainingAuthority. The Remand Extension Order dated 27.08.2004was not placed before the authority while passing order of detention. Remand Order dated 27.08.2004 was also not served on the detenu. Observing that the detention has been passed mechanically without considering the relevant materials, detention order was quashed on the ground of non – application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. "
Operative part
In view of the above undisputed facts, which are borne out by records, the impugned order of detention cannot be continued hereafter, as the confirmation order was passed without giving copies of the order of remand and remand extension order. 6. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.33 of 2011, dated 02.12.2011, is quashed. The detenu, by name, J.Guru @ Gurunathan, S/o.Jothinathan, isordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar(CS) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3To1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District. 3. The Director General of PoliceChennai. 4. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.NB ORDER MADE INHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD).No.1139 of 2011 21.02.2012KA : 13.03.2012 :3p/7c
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theimpugned Detention Order passed by the second respondent, in hisproceedings in Cr
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.