Madras High Court
Muniyan vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 11 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.380 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.380 of 2024
Muniyan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the detention
order of the second respondent in H.S(M)Confdl. No.11/2024 dated 29.02.2024
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.380 of 2024
and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of
the detenue by name Valli, S/o. Muniyan, aged about 23 years, now detained as
GOONDA at Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Hon'ble Court and set him
at liberty forthwith
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the father of the detenue namely, Valli, aged about 23
years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in
H.S(M)Confdl. No.11/2024 dated 29.02.2024, holding him to be a "GOONDA",
as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order
is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also
perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other
grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on
the ground that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not
furnished with the translated copies of the remand extension relied on by him.
This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on
these ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon
perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.137 and 139 of
the booklet, it is clear that the translated copy of remand extension has not been
furnished to the detenue. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set
aside on this ground.
5. In this context, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Powanammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (1999) 2 SCC 413, wherein the Apex Court, after discussing the
safeguards embodied in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, observed that
the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making a representation
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
''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
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.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
...
...
16. For the above reasons, in our view, the nonsupply 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. We find that the above cited Powanammal's case applies in all
force to the case on hand as we find that the translated copy of remand extension
was not furnished to the detenue. This non furnishing of initial remand order to
the detenu, has impaired his constitutional right to make an effective
representation against the impugned preventive detention order. To be noted, this
constitutional right is ingrained in the form of a safeguard in Clause (5) of Article
22 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the
impugned detention order.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of
detention in H.S(M)Confdl. No.11/2024 dated 29.02.2024, passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Valli, S/o. Muniyan, aged about 23
years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in
connection with any other case.
[C.V.K., J.] & [J.S.N.P., J.]
11.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
To:
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
aav
11.09.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
