Madras High Court
Bhavarji vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 13 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, V.Sivagnanam
HCP.No.1844 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
H.C.P.No.1844 of 2024
Bhavarji ... Petitioner/uncle of the detenue
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of
Ranipet District,
Ranipet.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Walajapet Police Station,
Ranipet District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1844 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the
detention order passed but the second respondent pertaining to the order
made in B3/ D.O.No.40/2024 dated 08.06.2024 in detain the detenue
under 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a drug offender and quash the
same and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Aravindji,
S/o.Ranmaji Rajput, aged about 26 years, who is detained at Central
Prison, Vellore before this court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmal Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings
B3/D.O.No.40/2024 dated 08.06.2024 is sought to be quashed in the
present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.The confession statement at page Nos.19, 20 and 21 in the booklet
served on the detenue is found to be illegible. In view of the fact that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
illegible documents were served, the detenue has been deprived of
submitting effective representation, which is a mandate under the statute.
3. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in
'(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the
safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the
detenue should be afforded an opportunity of making representation
effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every
material in the language which can be understood by the detenue, is
imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:
“9.However, this Court has maintained a
distinction between a document which has been
relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds
of detention and a document which finds a mere
reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the
non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in
the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to
continued detention, the detenu need not show that
any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
non-supply of such a document would amount to
denial of the right of being communicated the
grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of
making an effective representation against the order.
But it would not be so where the document merely
finds a reference in the order of detention or among
the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's
complaint of non-supply of document has to be
supported by prejudice caused to him in making an
effective representation. What applies to a document
would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy
of the document in the language known to and
understood by the detenu, should the document be in
a different language.
..... 16.For the above reasons, in our view,
the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English
document, on the facts and in the circumstances,
renders her continued detention illegal. We,
therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith
unless she is required to be detained in any other
case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”
4. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order is liable to be quashed.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings B3/ D.O.No.40/2024 dated 08.06.2024
is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz.,
Aravindji, S/o.Ranmaji Rajput, aged about 26 years, who is detained at
Central Prison, Vellore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is
required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.]
13.08.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
gd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
gd
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate of
Ranipet District,
Ranipet.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Walajapet Police Station,
Ranipet District.
13.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
