Madras High Court
Saravanan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented on 19 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.1668 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
H.C.P.No.1668 of 2024
Saravanan ... Petitioner/Father of the
detenue
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented
By Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. State Rep. by Inspector of Police,
H6, RK Nagar Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1668 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent
pertaining to the order made in Memo No. 607/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated
30.05.2024 in detaining the detenue under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 as a
brand of Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce
the detenue, Dinesh @ Deena, aged 23 years who is detained at the Central
Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ramachandran
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu namely Dinesh
@ Deena S/o. Saravanan aged about 23 years, confined at Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the second respondent dated 30.05.2024 slapped
on his son, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Government Order in G.O.(D).No.82, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI)
Department dated 15.04.2024 has not been translated in the language
known to the detenue and thus the detenu is deprived from making effective
representation. Further, it is submitted that the detenue was arrested on
30.04.2024 and the impugned order of detention was passed on 30.05.2024
i.e., after a lapse of one month.
4. On perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in
Page Nos.415 to 417 of Volume I of the booklet, a copy of the Government
Order in G.O.(D).No.82, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department
dated 15.04.2024 is available and the translated copy in vernacular version
of the same has not been furnished to the detenue. Therefore, the detenue is
deprived from making effective representation and that the Detention Order
passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated. Further, it is brought to the
notice of this Court that the detenue has not filed any bail application.
Therefore, the inference drawn by the Authorities for detaining the detenue
under Act 14 of 1982 is not based on any acceptable ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. 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
detenu 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 detenu, 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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.”
6. 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
order is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by
the second respondent on 30.05.2024 in proceedings
No.607/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus
Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Dinesh @ Deena S/o Saravanan, aged
23 years, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [R.S.V., J.]
19.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented
By Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.Geore, Chennai - 9.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5. State Rep. by Inspector of Police,
H6, RK Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
veda
19.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
