Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2962
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
S. MANIKUMAR & V.M. VELUMANI, JJ.
Periyasamy
Versus
The Secretary, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai & Another
Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No. 501 of 2014
Decided on: 04-09-2014
For the Petitioner:D.R. Murugesan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: C. Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the detaining authority to furnish copies of materials relied on along with the grounds of detention within the stipulated time frame, as mandated by Section 8(1) of the Act.
Headnote:
Bootlegger - Detention Order - 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) - Section 8(1), 2011 (1) MWN (Crl.) 599 (DB), 2012 (2) LW (Crl.) 679, 2013 (1) LW (Crl) 161 - The court discussed the violation of Section 8(1) of the Act, which requires the detaining authority to furnish copies of materials relied on along with the grounds of detention to enable the detenu to make an effective representation at the earliest point of time. The court referred to previous judgments to interpret the computation of the period of five days as provided under Section 8(1) of the Act and held that the detaining authority's failure to serve the material documents on the detenue within five days constituted a clear violation of the mandatory provision, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the detaining order of his mother under 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. The detention order was challenged on the grounds of procedural irregularities and violation of constitutional provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detaining authority violated the mandatory provision of Section 8(1) of the Act by failing to furnish copies of materials relied on along with the grounds of detention within the stipulated five days, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Issues: Procedural irregularities, violation of constitutional provisions, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The detaining authority's failure to serve the material documents on the detenue within five days constituted a clear violation of the mandatory provision of Section 8(1) of the Act, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Final Decision: The impugned detention order was quashed, and the Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, ordering the detenue to be set at liberty forthwith unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.
V.M. Velumani, J.
1. Petitioner, son of the detenue, who has been detained under 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), has come forward with the present petition to quash the detaining order dated 09.03.2014 passed by the second respondent, in P.D.No.05/2014, detaining his mother as "Bootlegger" and set her at liberty.
2. On being satisfied that the detenue is a Bootlegger, an order of detention dated 09.03.2014, was passed by the second respondent. Detention order was served on 10.03.2014. Detenue was arrested on 23.02.2014 in the ground case. The detenu was remanded into custody on the same day in Crime No.144 of 2014, registered by Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thanjavur Unit, incharge, Pattukottai. The bail application moved in the ground case was dismissed on 04.03.2014, in Crl.M.P.No.1912 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, in Cr.No.144 of 2014. After dismissal of the bail application, the petitioner has come out with the present petition to quash the detention order, which declared his mother as "Bootlegger".
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the detention order has been passed mechanically based on the report given by the Inspector of Police, the sponsoring authority, the detention order has been passed without subjective satisfaction; entire copy of charge sheet was not placed before the detaining authority and the same was not furnished to the detenue; some of the documents were not readable and that the second respondent has failed to supply clean and readable copies and therefore, the detenue was not able to make effective representation; contents of translated copies of the documents and the grounds of detention are not inconformity with original documents; the detaining authority has failed to inform the detention order to the family members, as per Section 8 of the Act; the detaining authority has failed to furnish documents with regard to the ground case and similar case, by which, Articles 22(3) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India have been violated; representation dated 10.04.2014 to the first respondent was not disposed till date; the bail application filed by the detenue was dismissed and no bail application is pending as on date.
4. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit denying all the averments made by the petitioner. According to the second respondent, only after arriving at the subjective satisfaction, detention order was passed. The petitioner, son of the detenue was informed about the detention order and that he refused to receive the intimation. Therefore, on 11.03.2014, the order of detention was affixed on the door of the house of the detenue itself.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record and the Judgments relied on by the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail application filed by the detenue was dismissed on 04.03.2014 and no other bail application was pending. Therefore, there was no possibility of the detenue coming out from jail and that she cannot indulge any activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. He also reiterated all the averments made in the affidavit.
7. Per contra, Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that only after subjective satisfaction the detention order was passed. The entire procedure was followed in letter and spirit and he prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.
8. Though several points have been raised, from the records it is seen that the detention order was passed on 09.03.2014. The detention order was served on the detenue on 10.03.2014 through the Superintendent (Special Cell for Women), Tiruchirappalli. But the docu
