S. Manikumar, J.

1. The detenu, John, branded as Goonda, lodged in Madurai Central Prison, by order in No.18/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 04.04.2014, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai, 2nd respondent, under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

2. Though the petitioner has raised several grounds, inviting the attention of this Court to the grounds of detention that when the detenu was informed that he is entitled to be heard in person, before the Advisory Board and when he was permitted to have the assistance of his friend/relative, if he so desires, at the time of personal hearing of the Advisory Board and that when he has to make his own arrangement to get a friend/relative to be present, at the time of personal hearing of the Advisory Board, Mr.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the above, it is imperative on the part of the authorities that the detenu should be given adequate time to contact his friend or relative, make his own arrangements to get his friend/relative, to be present, at the time of personal hearing of the Advisory Board and that such friend/relative should have sufficient time, to assist the detenu in presenting his case before the State Advisory Board, and if the time given is not adequate or sufficient, then the Constitutional right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, to make an effective representation before the Advisory Board, would be infringed, and in such circumstances, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

3. Inviting the attention of this Court to Letter No.6079, Home, Prohibition, Excise (IX) Department, dated 07.05.2014 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Chennai, in particular, to the time and date of service of the said letter to the detenu, through the Additional Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai, Mr.Alagumani, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the Advisory Board at Chennai, proposed to have a personal hearing of the detenu on 12.05.2014 at 12.00 P.M., the detenu was informed only on 09.05.2014 at 13.50 Hours. In between 09.05.2014 and 12.05.2014, there were three days. 09.05.2014 was a Friday. 10.05.2014 and 11.05.2014 happened to be Saturday and Sunday. At early hours, on 11.05.2014, Sunday, the detenu was taken to Chennai.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the visitors are not allowed to meet the persons detained under detention laws, on Fridays and Saturdays. He therefore submitted that the detenu did not have sufficient time to contact his friend/relative on Friday, and discuss the matter with him, with the materials supplied, for the proposed personal hearing scheduled on 12.05.2014, at 12.00 P.M., at Chennai. He therefore submitted that the right provided to the detenu, to have the assistance of his friend/relative, at the time of personal hearing, before the Advisory Board, was thus denied and on this sole ground itself, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court made in Dharman v. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2002 (1) CTC 477 and followed in HCP.No.996 of 2011, dated 12.01.2012 [K.Mayilammal v. State of Tamil Nadu]. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed to set aside the order of detention.

5. Per contra, based on the counter affidavit, Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that vide impugned order, dated 04.04.2014, the Detaining Authority has already informed the detenu that he can have the assistance of his friend/relative, during the personal hearing of the Advisory Board and that therefore, no s