Madras High Court
Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 5 January, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
H.C.P.No.1982 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.1982 of 2023
Gomathi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its
The Secretary
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector
District Collector Office
Tiruvallur District.
3.The Superintendent of Police
District Superintendent of Police
Thiruvallur District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison-II
Puzhal, Chennai.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.1982 of 2023
5.The Inspector of Police
PEW Gummidipoondi
Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the
records in Detention Order passed in Memo BCDFGISSSV No.25/2023
dated 04.09.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the
same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of petitioner's
Husband Thiru.Davidraja M/A 27 years, S/o.Dhanasekar now confined in
Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Padmanabhan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by
Mr.C.Aravind
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN, J.)
The petitioner, wife of the detenu Davidraja, aged about 27 years,
S/o.Dhanasekar, has come forward with this petition challenging the
detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 04.09.2023 slapped on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
her husband, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu
Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders,
Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,
Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act,
1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner though canvassed several
points before this Court, focused mainly on the point that there is no
application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in arriving at the
subjective satisfaction. Learned counsel pointed out that the Detaining
Authority has not relied upon any similar case to arrive at the subjective
satisfaction and has merely stated “I am therefore satisfied that an order of
detention should be passed against the said accused Davidraja under the
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, with a view to prevent him from indulging in
such activities in future which are prejudicial to maintenance of Public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Order and Public Health.” This statement of the Detaining Authority
without any material, is mere ipse dixit and suffers from non application of
mind. Hence, on the above ground, the Detention Order is liable to be
quashed.
4.From a perusal of the Grounds of Detention, it is seen that the
subjective satisfaction arrived by the Detaining Authority, is not based on
any materials and there is no reference to any similar cases to arrive at such
subjective satisfaction. Further, the imminent possibility of the detenu
coming out on bail in the ground case has not been specifically stated by the
Detaining Authority. This subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority
is mere ipse dixit and suffers from non-application of mind.
5. The issue is directly covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to
Government and Another reported in 2011 [5] SCC 244. The relevant
observations are as follows:-
''10.In our opinion, if details are given by the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
authority about the alleged bail orders in similar cases
mentioning the date of the orders, the bail application number,
whether the bail order was passed in respect of the co-accused in
the same case, and whether the case of the co-accused was on
the same footing as the case of the petitioner, then, of course, it
could be argued that there is likelihood of the accused being
released on bail, because it is the normal practice of most courts
that if a co-accused has been granted bail and his case is on the
same footing as that of the petitioner, then the petitioner is
ordinarily granted bail. However, the respondent authority
should have given details about the alleged bail order in similar
cases, which has not been done in the present case. A mere ipse
dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the
detention order and has to be ignored.
11.In our opinion, the detention order in question only
contains ipse dixit regarding the alleged imminent possibility of
the accused coming out on bail and there was no reliable
material to this effect. Hence, the detention order in question
cannot be sustained.''
In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision
cited supra and in view of the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that
the detention order is liable to be quashed.
6.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in
BCDFGISSSV No.25/2023, dated 04.09.2023, is hereby set aside and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Davidraja, aged about
27 years, S/o.Dhanasekar, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he
is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
05.01.2024
pvs
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector
District Collector Office
Tiruvallur District.
3.The Superintendent of Police
District Superintendent of Police
Thiruvallur District.
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison-II
Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Inspector of Police
PEW Gummidipoondi
Tiruvallur District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
pvs
05.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
