IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 18.09.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN H.C.P.No.800 of 2017 Sheela .. Petitioner Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai-7. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner husband's detention order dated 29.04.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in proceedings No.216/BCDFGISSSV/2017 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's husband namely Nathan @ Ulaganathan @ Sathiyanathan, aged 36 years, S/o.Chandran, before this Hon'ble Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now detained at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-66.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Paarthiban for M/s.C.C.Chellappan For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R [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 records relating to the detention order passed in No.216/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 29.04.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Nathan @ Ulaganathan @ Sathiyanathan, aged 36 years, S/o.Chandran, residing at No.5/8, Vellalar 2nd Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-22 and quash the same.
2. The Inspector of Police, Anti Vice Squad, Chennai, 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. Anti Vice Squad-II Crime No.15/2017 registered under Sections 3[2]a, 4[1] and 5[1]a of ITP Act.
ii. Anti Vice Squad-I Crime No.37/2017 registered under Sections 3[2]a, 4[1] and 5[1]a of ITP Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3. Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 18.04.2017, one Sajikumar, Gr-I PC 27018 and other police officials, have watched prostitution business in the place of occurrence. At that time, the detenu has approached him and subsequently, taken him to a room and further, he asked to have sexual intercourse with a woman by paying a sum of Rs.3,000/- and at such circumstances, a case has been registered in Crime No.54/2017 under Sections 3[2]a, 4[1], 5[1]a, 6[1] and 7[1] of ITP Act 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 arrived at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as immoral traffic offender 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 perusing all the materials, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, passed the impugned Detention Order and the same does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the detenu, two representations are submitted, but the same are not disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representations submitted on the side of the detenu are duly 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 1st representation, in between column Nos.7 to 9, 3 clear working days are available and in between column Nos.12 and 13, 18 clear working days are available. Likewise, in respect of 2nd representation, in between column Nos.7 to 9, 4 clear working days are available and in between column Nos.12 and 13, 2 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.
9. In fine, this petition is allowed. The Detention Order dated 29.04.2017 passed in No.216/BCDFGISSSV/2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Nathan @ Ulaganathan @ Sathiyanathan, aged 36 years, S/o.Chandran, is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
gya To
1. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public [Law and Order] Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai-7.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
[in duplicate for communication to the detenu]
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
[A.S., J.] [P.K., J.] 18.09.2017 A.SELVAM, J.
and P.KALAIYARASAN, J.
gya H.C.P.No.800 of 2017 18.09.2017