IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.1.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Habeas Corpus Petition No.1538 of 2007 Geetha .. Petitioner Vs 1. State, represented by the Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Vellore District at Vellore. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiar For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Ravi @ Vellaikan Ravi, son of Krishnan, who was incarcerated by order dated 15.10.2007 of the second respondent under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Bootlegger, has preferred this writ petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 15.10.2007 in Ref.No.C3.D.O.No.87/2007 against the petitioner's husband, Ravi @ Vellaikan Ravi, now confined at Central Prison, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vellore, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. On 21.9.2007, the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Ranipet Police Station along with police party conducted prohibition raid at Chengalnatham village. At that time, the detenu was found pouring some liquid into a tumbler from a plastic can and giving it to a person standing in front of him. On seeing the police people, the person who tied to receive the tumbler ran away. The detenu also tried to escape from that place, but he got caught by the police. Six lorry tubes each containing 50 litres of country arrack and one white colour plastic can containing 10 litres of country arrack were recovered. The detenu was arrested and a case was registered in Crime No.632 of 2007 under Section 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Samples of country arrack were taken and were sent for chemical analysis, which disclosed that the arrack was mixed with atropine of 6.1mg% W/V. 3. The second respondent, taking note of this case as a ground case and finding that there are six adverse cases against the detenu in Crime Nos.291/2006 and 362/2007 on the file of Ranipet Police Station and Crime Nos. 46, 101, 153, and 209 of 2007 on the file of Sholinghur Police Station for the offence punishable under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, and having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Bootlegger. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the order of detention on 15.10.2007, a representation on behalf of the detenu dated 24.10.2007 was made. Having received the same, it is mandatory on the part of the detaining authority to consider the same within twelve days from the date of detention. But, the detaining authority had chosen to reject the same by proceedings dated 12.12.2007, which, according to the learned counsel, is without jurisdiction and contrary to law. 5. On perusal of the materials available, we find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the representation dated 24.10.2007 was considered and rejected by the detaining authority on 12.12.2007, i.e. after twelve days from the date of passing of the order of detention dated 15.10.2007. Once the representation was received after twelve days of passing of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detention order, the detaining authority is only expected to send the same to the Government, but the detaining authority himself has rejected the representation and sent the rejection order to the detenu on 15.12.2007, which is an error apparent on the fact of record. Hence, on this ground, we are satisfied that the order of detention vitiates. Accordingly, we allow this habeas corpus petition setting aside the impugned order of detention. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case. ATR Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Vellore District Vellore. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Vellore. 4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5.The Joint Secretary to Government. Public Law and order Department, Fort St George, Chennai. VRK (co) sg 11/01/08 H.C.P.No.1538 of 2007 3.1.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/