Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5273
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Gowri
Versus
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & Another
H.C.P.No.1661 of 2010
Decided On : 07-12-2010
For the Petitioner:N. Sudharsan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The detention order can be challenged based on non-supply of relied upon documents and lack of sufficient material for subjective satisfaction.
Headnote:
Detention Order - Challenge by Mother of Detenu - Act 14 of 1982 - Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 325, 302, 506(ii), 323, 341, 427, 384, 307 - The detention order under Act 14 of 1982 was challenged based on non-supply of relied upon documents and lack of sufficient material for subjective satisfaction. The court found that the detention order was vitiated due to non-supply of documents and lack of cogent material for subjective satisfaction.
Fact of the Case:
The mother of the detenu challenged the detention order of her son, who was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under Act 14 of 1982 based on his involvement in adverse cases and a ground case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was vitiated due to non-supply of relied upon documents and lack of sufficient material for subjective satisfaction.
Issues: Non-supply of relied upon documents, lack of sufficient material for subjective satisfaction
Ratio Decidendi: The detention order was found to be infirm due to non-supply of relied upon documents and lack of sufficient material for subjective satisfaction.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, setting aside the detention order and directing the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.
M. Chockalingam, J.
1. This Petition is brought forth by the mother of the detenu challenging an order of the Second Respondent made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.42/2010 dated 28.7.2010 whereby the detenu Kannan S/o Murugesan was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982.
2. The Affidavit filed in support of the Petition and the grounds of detention are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.
3. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in three Adverse cases viz., (1) Thiruporur P.S., Cr.No.403/2010 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 325 and 302, IPC (2) Thiruporur P.S., Cr.No.404/2010 under Sections 506(ii), IPC r/w 2 and 3 of TNPPDL Act (3) Thiruporur P.S., Cr.No.405/2010 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 506(ii), IPC r/w 2 & 3 of TNPPDL Act and a Ground case registered by Thiruporur P.S., Cr.No.406/2010 under Sections 341, 294(b), 427, 384, 307, 506(ii), IPC for an occurrence that took place on 12.6.2010, and the detenu was arrested on 13.6.2010, the Detaining Authority after scrutiny of the materials placed, was of the opinion that the detenu should be detained under the said Act since his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and hence, passed the order which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the Petitioner learned Counsel raised two points which according to him would be suffice to set aside the detention order. Learned Counsel would submit that the detenu was shown arrested in all the Adverse cases on 10.6.2010 and in the Ground Case on 12.6.2010. The remand orders in all the Adverse cases are relevant documents and also relied upon documents but the grounds of detention does not reflect about the remand orders in the Adverse cases. The copies of those documents were actually not supplied. Thus, the non-supply of the relied upon documents would vitiate the detention order. Learned Counsel would further submit that though the authority has observed that the detenu would indulge in such activities in future, he has not even stated that there was real or imminent possibility or likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail which shows the non-application of mind on the part of the authority. Under such circumstances, on the above grounds, the detention order is vitiated and it has to be set aside.
5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention.
6. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to three Adverse cases and one Ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu was shown arrested in all the Adverse cases on 10.6.2010 and in the Ground case on 13.6.2010 and the remand orders in all the Adverse cases are relevant documents and they are also relied upon documents but the grounds of detention does not reflect about, the remand orders in the Adverse cases. The copies of those documents were actually not supplied. The non-supply of the relied upon documents would vitiate the detention order. Further, though the authority has observed that the detenu would indulge in such activities in future, he has not even stated that there was real or imminent possibility or likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail which shows the non-application of mind on the part of the authority. There was an occasion for the Full Bench of the Court to consider the same in Kalaiselvi, G. v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2007 (5) CTC 657, wherein it has been held as follows:
“24. From the reading of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the conclusion of the Detaining Authority that there is imminent possibility of the detenu being released o
