Madras High Court
Mrs.Rasamma vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 14 October, 2025
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
HCP No. 2047 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
HCP No. 1247 of 2025
Mrs.Rasamma,
W/o Mariyappan,D.No.164/1
Kovilur, Ennamangalam Village,
Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District - 638 501 ..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Government of Tamilnadu,
rep. by the Principal Secretary, Home,
Prohibition and excise Department,
Secretariate, Fort St.George, Kamarajar
Salai, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrte and District
Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
3. The District Forest Officer,
Erode Forest Division, Erode-638 004
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:39:23 pm )
HCP No. 2047 of 2025
5. The Forest Range Officer,
Anthiyur Forest Range, Erode Forest
Division, Erode Division -638 501 Respondent(s)
PRAYER
To issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, orders or
direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in the
impugned detention order passed in Cr.M.P.No.23/Forest Offender/2025 C1,
Dated 04.06.2025 by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and set at liberty the
detenu namely, Ammasai, aged 35 years, son of Mariyappan residing at
D.No.164/1, Kovilur, Ennamangalam Village, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District,
presently confined at Central Prison at Coimbatore.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.V.Vijayakumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan,
Additional public Prosecutor.
ORDER
J.Nisha Banu,J.
and
S.Sounthar,J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, viz., Ammasai, Son of
Mariyappan, aged about 35 years, who is confined at Central Prison,
Coimbatore, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order
passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.23/Forest Offender/2025-C1
dated 04.06.2025, branding him as "Forest Offender" under the Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:39:23 pm )
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] read with the order issued by the Government in
G.O.(D).No.112 Home Prohibition and Excise (VI) Department dated
11.04.2025 under section 3(2) of the aforesaid Act.
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.
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 delegation of power passed in G.O.(D)No.112 dated 11.04.2025
was not translated in tamil version. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was
deprived of making effective representation.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly state that the said
G.O. was not translated in tamil version.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that in Vol-II, page Nos.41-42 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:39:23 pm )
the booklet, i.e., G.O.(D).No.112 dated 11.04.2025, furnished to the detenue,
was not translated in tamil version. Therefore, the detenue is deprived from
making effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the
Detaining Authority is vitiated.
6. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:39:23 pm )
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.
..... 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.”
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:39:23 pm )
quashed.
7. Accordingly, the habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention
order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.23/Forest
Offender/2025/C1 dated 04.06.2025 is hereby set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Ammasai, Son of Mariyappan, aged about 35 years, who is now confined in the
Central Prison, Coimbatore, is hereby directed to be set at liberty forthwith
unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
(J.NISHA BANU J.)(S.SOUNTHAR J.)
14-10-2025
vsi
To
1.The Principal Secretary , Home
Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariate,
Fort St.George, Kamarajar
Salai, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District
Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:39:23 pm )
3. The District Forest Officer,
Erode Forest Division, Erode - 638 004.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
5. The Forest Range Officer,
Anthiyur Forest Range, Erode Forest
Division, Erode Division - 638 501.
6. The Joint Secretary, Law & Order Dept., Secretariat,Chennai-9
7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:39:23 pm )
J.NISHA BANU J.
AND
S.SOUNTHAR J.
vsi
14-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 01:39:23 pm )
