High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Tmt. Suseela v. The Secretary to Government - H.C.P.No.1117 of 2003  RD-TN 1127 (23 December 2003)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMKANIAN
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.K.KRISHNAN.
H.C.P.No.1117 of 2003
Tmt. Suseela. ..Petitioner. -Vs-
1.The Secretary to Government
of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition
and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
2.The District Collector and
Cuddalore. ..Respondents. This H.C.P filed to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ order or direction in the said nature calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in connection with the order of the 2nd respondent dated 10.3.2003 in C4/16249/2003 detaining Palanivel, s/o Thavamani, aged about 22 years as a Bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the said detenu now lodged in the Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Honourable Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.N.Sathish Babu For Respondent :: Mr.Abudukumar Rajarathimam Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) :ORDER
(Order of the court was made by S.K.KRISHNAN,J) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. It is stated that the second respondent herein passed the detention order dated 10.3.2003 against the detenu in C4/16249/2003. Based on the said order, the son of the petitioner was detained as bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 12982.
2.The main point that has been emphasised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is the non application of mind by the detaining authority. In this connection, it is pointed out that the detenu was produced before the Magistrate on 26.2.2003. This fact has been referred in page 34 of the typed set. It is seen that the Inspector of police submitted a requisition letter to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram on 26.2.2003, wherein the Inspector of Police has requested the learned Magistrate for remand of the accused. In page 35 of the typed set, it is seen that the detenu was produced before the Magistrate only on 27.2.2003. In this connection, the learned counsel would state that the detaining authority has not at all applied the mind while passing the detention order. It is pointed out that the detaining authority has not received the clarification from the sponsoring authority with regard to the fate of the detenu between 26.2.2 003 and 27.2.2003. It is seen that the detaining authority has not at all applied its mind before passing the detention order against the detenu. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon an unreported decision of this court (to which one of us is a party) in H.C.P.No.2213 of 2002 dated 24.4.2003 ("Ms. Parasakthi .vs.District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul and another"),wherein it has been held as follows:-
"From the above remand order it is made clear that the detenue was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, with the remand report dated 17.7.2002, apparently, which is not available in the booklet. Therefore,the fate of the detenue, who was arrested on 16.7.2002 at 15.00 hours and brought to the police Station at 17.00 hours, from 17.00 hours on 16.7.2002 till the production of the detenue before the Judicial Magistrate on 17.7.2002, has not been explained either by the sponsoring authority or by the detaining authority. The detenue, being a lady, her custody from 17.00 hours on 16.7.2002 till 17.7.2002 has to be explained either by the sponsoring authority or the detaining authority. Since the same has not been explained by any body, we are having our own doubt as to the fate of the detenue for the said period and for that reason alone, we are of the view that the detention order has to be quashed, since the arrest made in the ground case becomes illegal and contrary to law, the detention order passed based on the ground case cannot be sustained".
3.We hold that the same principles would apply to the facts of this case also. Hence following the said decision of this court cited supra, we are inclined to quash the order of detention passed by the second respondent.
4.Accordingly,this H.C.P is allowed. The order of detenion is quashed and the detenu is set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with some other case.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai.9.
2.The District Magistrate and Collector,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
3.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Cuddalore.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
5.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Department,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.