Madras High Court
R.Sathiya vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 18 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2074 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
H.C.P.No.2074 of 2024
R.Sathiya ... Petitioner/Wife 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,
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Ariyalur District.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
5. Inspector of Police,
Meensurutti Police Station,
Ariyalur District. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.2074 of 2024
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records, relating to the
detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order
made in Cr.M.P.No.23/2024 dated 28.07.2024 in detain the detenue under
2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Bootlegger and quash the same and
direct the respondent to produce the detenue RAJA, son of MUNUSAMY
aged about 42 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Thiruchirapalli
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 preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated
28.07.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The Government Order in G.O.(D)No.187, Home Prohibition
and Excise (XVI) Department dated 12.07.2024 enclosed at page nos.68 and
69 in volume -II of the booklet served on the detenu has not been translated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in the language known to the detenue. Thus, the detenu has been deprived of
submitting his representation in an effective manner.
4. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
..... 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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. 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.
6. For the aforesaid reasons,, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings Cr.M.P.No.23/2024 dated 28.07.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Raja, aged 42/2024, s/o. of Munusamy confined at Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [N.M., J.]
18.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Chief 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.George, Chennai - 9.
3. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Ariyalur District.
5. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
6. Inspector of Police,
Meensurutti Police Station,
Ariyalur District.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.MALA., J.
veda
18.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
