Madras High Court
Manikandan @ Pei Mani vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 26 July, 2021
H.C.P.(MD) No.114 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
H.C.P.(MD) No.114 of 2021
Manikandan @ Pei Mani ... Petitioner/Detenu
-vs-
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.114 of 2021
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire
records, connected with the detention order of the second respondent in No.
01/BCDFGISSSV/2021, dated 04.01.2021 and quash the same and direct
the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name
Manikandan @ Pei Mani, son of Chellapandi, aged about 28 years, now
detained as “Goonda” at Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set
him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Standing counsel for the State
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.)
Heard Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.S.Ravi, learned Standing counsel appearing for the
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
2. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the detenu, namely,
Manikandan @ Pei Mani, S/o. Chellapandi, aged about 28 years, against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.114 of 2021
detention order in No.01/BCDFGISSSV/2021, dated 04.01.2021, branding
him as “Goonda” as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act
14 of 1982.
3. Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would argue that though the petitioner has raised several grounds, he has
confined his arguments with regard to non-furnishing of documents, in
violation of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
G.Kalaiselvi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2007) 5 CTC 657.
According to the learned counsel, the detenu surrendered before the Judicial
Magistrate on 27.11.2020 and he was remanded to judicial custody till
02.12.2020. Police custody was sought for and granted from 07.12.2020 to
08.12.2020. But in between from 03.12.2020 to 07.12.2020, there was no
material to show that the detenu was remanded. In the representation dated
16.01.2021, the remand extension order was sought for, but it was not
furnished.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.114 of 2021
4. Per contra, Mr.S.Ravi, learned Standing counsel appearing for the
State opposed this petition contending that the detenu was having 17 cases
to his credit and the Detaining Authority, after satisfying with the materials
placed by the Sponsoring Authority, has rightly passed the order of
detention. According to the learned Standing counsel, there is no illegality
or infirmity in the detention order. The learned Standing counsel has
referred the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, in support of
his submissions.
5. From the perusal of the booklet at Page No.160, it is seen that the
detenu had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul on
27.11.2020 and he was remanded to judicial custody till 02.12.2020. The
order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, dated 07.12.2019, shows
that police custody was sought for and granted from 07.12.2020 to
08.12.2020. But no other material to show that the remand of the detenu was
extended from 03.12.2012 to 07.12.2020. In the representation, the detenu
sought for the remand extension order, but it was not furnished and no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.114 of 2021
explanation was given for non-furnishing of the order. The Full Bench of
this Court in the above cited decision has observed as follows:-
“21.Law is well settled that the detaining authority is
required to give copies of the relied upon documents along with
grounds of detention and non-furnishing of relied upon
document has the effect of vitiating the order of detention. (See
1999 SCC (Crl.) 231 - Pownammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and
another). Where, however, a document is not relied upon, yet the
detenu asks for copy of such document, which is either referred
to or has got some bearing, it is the duty of the appropriate
authority to furnish such copy or atleast indicate the reason why
such copy is not supplied to the detenu inspite of specific request
by the detenu. As already indicated, where a document asked for
is on the face of it irrelevant, non-furnishing of such document
is immaterial. Where, however, the document has got some
relevance, refusal to supply such copy, inspite of specific
request, without any valid reason, may have the effect of
vitiating the order of detention as the detenu is likely to be
prejudiced, inasmuch as he would not be in a position to make
an effective representation.
22.In the present case, in our opinion, when the detenu
specifically asked for a copy of the remand order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.114 of 2021
30.03.2007, the appropriate authority should have either
furnished copy of such order or furnished sufficient reasons as
to why such order could not be furnished. On this ground, the
order of detention is liable to be quashed.”
6. Following the ratio laid down in the aforestated decision and
considering the facts of this case, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The order of detention
passed by the second respondent, in No.01/BCDFGISSSV/2021, dated
04.01.2021, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Manikandan @
Pei Mani, S/o. Chellapandi, aged about 28 years, who is now detained at
Central Prison, Madurai is directed to be released forthwith unless his
presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other
case.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] & [B.P.,J.]
26.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
akv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.114 of 2021
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the
order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.(MD) No.114 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
akv
H.C.P.(MD) No.114 of 2021
26.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
