Madras High Court
M.V.Raja vs The Secretary To Government on 9 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S.Ramesh
HCP.No.333 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.333 of 2025
M.V.Raja ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Tirupathur District
Tirupathur 635 601
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tirupathur District, Tirupathur - 1
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore- 2
5.The Inspector of Police
Kandili Police Station
Tirupathur District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
HCP.No.333 of 2025
order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 23.01.2025
C3/D.O.No.01/2025 against the petitioner's son Palani, male, aged 33 years,
S/o.Raja, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same
and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the father of the detenu viz. Palani, aged
about 33 years, S/o.Raja, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 23.01.2025
slapped on his son, branding him as "Goonda" 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 learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.
3. Though 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 Accident Register has not been translated in
vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective
representation. Therefore, on the sole ground, the detention order is liable to
be quashed.
4. On a perusal of the documents available on record, particularly in
Page Nos.116 & 117 of the booklet, a copy of the Accident Register 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
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.
7. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the
second respondent on 23.01.2025 in No.C3/D.O.No.01/2025, is hereby set
aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz. Palani,
aged about 33 years, S/o.Raja, presently confined in Central Prison, Vellore,
is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
09.06.2025
kas
Index: Yes/No
Neutral Citation
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Tirupathur District
Tirupathur 635 601
3.The Superintendent of Police
Tirupathur District, Tirupathur - 1
4.The Superintendent of Prison
Central Prison, Vellore- 2
5.The Inspector of Police
Kandili Police Station
Tirupathur District
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
09.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 04:36:53 pm )
