Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RATINAM versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ratinam v. The Secretary to Government - H.C.P.No.425 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 604 (22 August 2005)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 22/08/2005

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice P.D.DINAKARAN

and

The Honourable Mr.Justice S.K.KRISHNAN

H.C.P.No.425 of 2005

Ratinam ... Petitioner -Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai,

Egmore,

Chennai - 600 008. ... Respondents This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in B.D.F. G.I.S.No.102/2005, dated 17.3.2005 and directing the 2nd respondent to produce the body of petitioner's son Muthukumar @ Kumar, Son of Alaguvel, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Maharajan for Mr.C.Balasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran Addl. Public Prosecutor :O R D E R



(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.) The petitioner, father of the detenu, filed this habeas corpus petition against the order dated 17.3.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, directing the preventive detention of one Muthukumar @ Kumar, son of Alaguvel, branding him as a Goonda under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.

2. Alleging that the detenu is habitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as such he is a Goonda as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the Commissioner of Police, the second respondent herein passed the impugned detention order dated 17.3.2005. The detaining authority, cited five adverse cases in addition to the ground case in Cr.No.488 of 2005 on the file of J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station under Sections 380, 341, 336, 392 and 506(2) I.P.C, for branding the detenu as a Goonda.

3. Though the petitioner challenges the order of detention on several grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued only one point assailing the correctness of the order as well as the detention. Learned counsel submitted that the order of detention seems to have been passed casually, even without reference to the existing facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner takes us through the grounds of detention and more particularly to paragraph 4, wherein the detaining authority has stated as follows,

"I am aware that Thiru Muthukumar @ Kumar is in remand in J6 Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.488/2005 and he has not moved any bail application so far. ..."

This order has been passed on 17.3.2005, whereas according to the learned counsel, the bail application was actually filed much before that. From this, the learned counsel points out that the detaining authority, as also the sponsoring authority should have been in the know of the facts and should have acted on the correct facts. The making of a statement that no bail application had been filed, would suggest that the authority concerned had not applied its mind property.

4. One of us (P.D.DINAKARAN, J.), sitting along with V.S.Sirpurkar, J. (as he then was), while allowing HCP No.1836 of 2002 on 11.12.2002 involving similar issue, observed as under, "... We are, therefore, convinced that this incorrect statement depicts the casual approach with which the matters were dealt with, firstly by the sponsoring authority and secondly by the detaining authority. In that view, the detention order itself would be bad as it was passed casually and on the basis of incorrect statements made in the grounds. ..." Following the said decisions, we are of the view that the order of detention is liable to be set aside.

5. Consequently, the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 17.3.2005 is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the detenu from custody forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case or cause.

vr

To

1. The Secretary to Government,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.

2. The Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai - 8.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai. (in duplicate for communication to the detenu) 4. The Joint Secretary to Government,

Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras -104. 


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.