IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:13.09.2017 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN H.C.P.No.452 of 2017 Chandra Petitioner vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore-9. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 18.03.2017, in C3.D.O.No.30/2017, against the petitioner husband Manoharan, aged 53 years, son of Gangappa Pillai, 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.S.Senthilvel for http://www.judis.nic.in For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, Addl.P.P.
ORDER (Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM,J.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order passed in No.C3.D.O.No.30/2017, dated 18.03.2017, by the detaining authority against the detenu, by name Manoharan, aged 53 years, S/o Gangappa Pillai, residing at No.131, Mettu Theru, Chittoor Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District, and quash the same.
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Takkolam Police Station, as sponsoring authority, has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases.
i. Kanchi Taluk Police Station, Cr.No.581 of 2016, registered under Sections 4(1)a, 4(1-A)ii of TNP Act, 1937 (Act 10/1937) r/w.6 & 11 of TNRS Rules, 2000 altered into Sec.4(1)a of TNP Act, 1937 (Act 10/1937) r/w.6 & 7 of TNRS Rules, 2000.
ii. Takkolam Police Station, Cr.No.294/2016, registered under Sections 4(1)a, 4(1-A)ii of TNP Act, 1937 altered into Sec.4(1)a of TNP Act, 1937 (Act 10/1937).
http://www.judis.nic.in
3. Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 20.02.2017, the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Takkolam Police Station and other Police officials have observed bush in Chittoor Manavanthangal lake, wherein, they found the detenu and he was in possession of illicit arrack and after observing due formalities, a case has been registered in Crime No.37 of 2017, under Sections 4(1)aaa, 4(1-A)ii of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 r/w Sec.328 of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
4. The detaining authority, after perusing the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately branded him as a 'Bootlegger' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, as petitioner.
5. In the counter filed on the side of the respondents it is averred to the effect that most of the averments made in the petition are false. The sponsoring authority has submitted all the relevant materials to the detaining authority. The detaining authority, after http://www.judis.nic.in considering all the relevant materials and other connected documents, has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately branded him as a 'bootlegger' by way of passing the impugned detention order and the same does not require any interference and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the detenu, two representations have been submitted and the same have not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has contended that the representations submitted on the side of the detenu have already been disposed of without delay and therefore, the contention urged on the side of the petitioner, is liable to be rejected.
8. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein it is clearly stated that in respect of the first representation, in between Column Nos.7 to 9, three clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, seventeen clear working days are available and in respect of the second http://www.judis.nic.in representation, in between Column Nos.7 to 9, six clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, fourteen clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order dated 18.03.2017, passed in C3.D.O.No.30/2017, by the detaining authority against the detenu, by name Manoharan, aged 53 years, S/o Gengappa Pillai, residing at No.131, Mettu Theru, Chittoor Village, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District, is quashed and the respondents are directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with some other case.
msk Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No To
1. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
(A.S.J.) (P.K.J.) 13.09.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
2. The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
3. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore-9.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras http://www.judis.nic.in A.SELVAM,J.
and P.KALAIYARASAN,J.
msk H.C.P.No.452 of 2017 13.09.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in