Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VEERAMMAL versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Veerammal v. The Secretary to Government - H.C.P. No.311 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 431 (28 June 2005)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 28/06/2005

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM

and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR.RAMALINGAM

H.C.P. No.311 of 2005

Veerammal ... Petitioner -Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Fort St. George,

Chennai 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai,

Egmore,

Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.S.Thahir

For Respondents : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order No.47/2005, dated 16.2.2005, passed by the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the body of the detenu by name Senthil @ Senthil Kumar, aged about 26 years, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai, before this Hon'ble court and thereafter set him at liberty.

:O R D E R



(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. She challenges the detention order dated 16.02.2005, detaining her son as 'Goonda' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

2. Though several contentions have been raised, attacking the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the foremost, projected that the English version of the Accident Register, which finds place at page No.113 of the paper book supplied to the detenu, is not legible and readable. According to him, based on the representation, the Government informed the detenu that necessary steps have been taken for supply of legible and readable English version of the Accident Register (page 113) to the detenu. It is also his grievance that in spite of specific direction by the Government, the said copy has not been supplied to the detenu, which deprived him in making an effective representation. To this, learned Government Advocate argues that though the English version is not legible, the Tamil version, which finds place at page No.114 of the paper book, is clear and readable and it satisfies the requirements of the detenu. He is not in a position to inform this Court as to whether the direction of the Government in letter No.6216 k(k)M (10)/2005, dated 21.3.2005, has been complied with or not. In the light of the said controversy, we have verified page Nos.113 and 114 of the paper book, namely, copy of the English and Tamil version of the Accident Register respectively. No doubt, page No.114, which relates to Tamil version of the Accident Register, is legible and readable, however, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the English version of the Accident Register, which finds place at page No.113, is not legible. That may be the reason for the Government assuring the detenu that a clear and readable copy of page No.113 of the paper book will be supplied to him. In the absence of any intimation or record to show that readable copy of the Accident Register (page-113) is supplied to the detenu, we hold that the detenu is not only deprived in making effective representation but also the authority concerned has not obeyed or implemented the positive direction of the Government in the letter dated 21.3.2005. On this ground, we interfere with the impugned order of detention.

3. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.

JI.

To

1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,

Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai. (In duplicate for communication to detenu). 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.