Madras High Court
Nallammal vs The Principal Chief Secretary To ... on 27 September, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.2301 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
H.C.P.No.2301 of 2024
Nallammal ... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenu
Vs.
1. The Principal Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Perambalur District, Perambalur.
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Perambalur District.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Perambalur District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for
the issuance of 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.15/2024 dated 09.07.2024 in detain the detenu under 2(b) of Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 7
HCP.No.2301 of 2024
Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a BOOT-LEGGER and quash the same and direct the
respondent o produce the detenu Selvarasu, son of Thangavelu aged about 51
years, who is detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli before this Court and
set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : M/s.K.M.Karunakaran
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
09.07.2024 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. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the
ground that the detenu was furnished with illegible copies in volume-II of the
booklet. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page Nos.75 and 76 in
Volume-II of the booklet furnished to the detenu, are illegible. Thus, furnishing
of illegible copies of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making
effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
..... 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
liable to be quashed.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent in proceedings Cr.M.P.No.15/2024 dated 09.07.2024 is
hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,
Selvarasu, aged 51/2024, S/o. Thangavelu confined at Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in
connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
27.09.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
veda
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Principal Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
3. District Collector and District Magistrate,
Perambalur District, Perambalur.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Perambalur District.
5. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
6. The Inspector of Police,
Prohibition Enforcement Wing,
Perambalur District.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
veda
27.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
