Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 999 (MAD)

Tr. Mani v. The Secretary to Government & Another

2005-07-04

A.R.RAMALINGAM, P.SATHASIVAM

body2005
Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. The detenu, by name Mani challenges the Detention Order dated 15.02.2005 detaining him as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the foremost projected that even though mother of the detenu had sent a representation on 10.02.2005 to the Detaining Authority and the same was duly acknowledged, the same was not considered, which shows non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in passing the impugned Detention Order. In support of his contention, learned counsel has produced copy of the said representation sent to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai (Detaining Authority) and also acknowledgement card by the said authority. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Division Bench decision of this Court reported in the case of Kali v. State, rep. by Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, etc. & another (2002 – 1 – L.W. (Crl) 401). 3. We perused the copy of the representation dated 10.02.2005 and the receipt evidencing registering a letter on 11.02.2005 as well as acknowledgement card duly signed by the addressee (Detaining Authority). 4. We are satisfied that the representation on behalf of the detenu was made on 10.02.2005 to the Detaining Authority, i.e. prior to the Detention Order dated 15.02.2005. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2002 – 1 – L.W. (Crl.) 401. In similar circumstances, after finding that there was pre-detention representation to the District Magistrate – District Collector – Detaining Authority and there was no reference in the Grounds of Detention, the Division Bench has concluded that the Detention Order of the authority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and on that ground, quashed the Detention Order. 5. On going through the factual details in that decision, we are of the view that the same is applicable to the case on hand. We have already found that there is enough material to show that a representation was made on 10.02.2005, i.e. prior to the Detention Order and the same was acknowledged by the Detaining Authority. 6. In such circumstances, as observed in the said decision, in the absence of any reference about the pre-detention representation in the Grounds of Detention, we hold that the ultimate Detention Order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. 6. In such circumstances, as observed in the said decision, in the absence of any reference about the pre-detention representation in the Grounds of Detention, we hold that the ultimate Detention Order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. On this ground, this petition is to be allowed. 7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this petition stands allowed. The detenu Mani, S/o.Subramani is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody, unless he is required in connection with any other case.