Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 67 (MAD)

Pachiappan v. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Another

2004-01-29

N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN, V.KANAGARAJ

body2004
Judgment :- V.Kanagaraj, J. This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the detenu himself praying to call for the records leading to the detention of the petitioner under Act 14/82 by detention order dated 10.11.2003 on the file of the second respondent made in D.O.No.73/2003-C2 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the petitioner before the Court and set him at liberty. 2. The detenu has been taken into custody on preventive detention branding him as a bootlegger by the detaining authority on being satisfied with all the adverse and ground cases registered against him. In fact, thirteen cases have been registered which are shown as adverse cases and in all those thirteen cases, he was convicted. They are all similar in nature of the ground case and therefore the detaining authority having become satisfied himself would come forward to allege that it is dangerous for the public order, if the detenu is not taken into preventive detention and hence, the detention order. 3. Today, when the H.C.P. was taken up for consideration in the presence of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Advocate, a specific point would be raised on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the detenu has made a representation dated 9.12.2003 to the Government in which he sought for certain clarifications which are vital concerning his preventive detention and the same has not at all been clarified by the Government and therefore, the inaction on the part of the Government would only give way for vitiating the order of detention. 4. On the part of the learned Government Advocate, he would also verify both the representation of the detenu and all other records made available, particularly, the order of rejection of the representation by the Government dated 24.12.2003 and he is not in a position to show anything relevant for clarifying the ambiguity that is sought for on the part of the detenu. It has to be taken by this Court that this attitude of the Government in not clarifying the ambiguity prevents the detenu from making an effective representation before the authorities concerned and therefore it would affect the order of preventive detention. It has to be taken by this Court that this attitude of the Government in not clarifying the ambiguity prevents the detenu from making an effective representation before the authorities concerned and therefore it would affect the order of preventive detention. This Court is of the view that by the point raised on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner he has driven home a vital aspect which would vitiate the order of detention and therefore, accepting the same, we are inclined to pass an order setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent herein. 5. In the result, (1) the above H.C.P. succeeds and the same is allowed; (2) the preventive detention order dated 10.11.2003 made in D.O.No.73/2003-C2 by the second respondent herein is hereby set aside; and (3) the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.