IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU H.C.P.No.195 of 2008 Vijaya W/o Govindasamy .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. State represented by the Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009 2. The District Collector & District Magistrate Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the order made in D.O.No.12/2008- C2 dated 7.2.2008 in detaining the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Bootlegger and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, namely, Padma, wife of Radhakrishnan, who is detained at the Special Prison for Women, Vellore before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner :: Mr.O.S.ThilakPasumbadiyar For Respondents :: Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was delivered by S.PALANIVELU, J.) The petitioner is the friend of the detenue by name Padma, who has been branded as 'Bootlegger' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained by means of the order passed by the second respondent dated 7.2.2008. She came to the adverse notice of the police as many as ten cases. The ground case is one that allegedly took place on 23.1.2008 at 8.30 hours. In this case also she was found to have been in possession of illicit arrack and the case was registered in Crime No.52 of 2008 under Section 4(1)(i) read with 4(1-A)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 28.1.2008, a pre-detention representation on behalf of the detenue was sent to the detaining authority, which was not properly considered, as it is mentioned therein that on the basis of the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai dated 1.2.2008, it came to light that the detenue was convicted inasmuch as five cases and the other five cases are pending disposal. He further submitted that the copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai dated 1.2.2008 was not furnished to the detenue and hence she could not make an effective representation before the authorities concerned. 3. It is true that whenever a report is called for from the sponsoring authority by the detaining authority for disposal of the representation, copy of such report, in the normal course, should be furnished to the detenue. However, in case when there are no adverse comments in such report, we are of the considered view that the failure on the part of the detaining authority to furnish the report of the sponsoring authority would not by itself vitiate the order of detention. Hence we reject the said contention. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though a pre-detention representation dated 28.1.2008 made on behalf of the detenue was sent to the Government, the same was not considered by the Government. We perused the file and we cannot find any representation properly forwarded to the Government except a post-detention representation dated 15.2.2008, which was disposed of by the Government on 28.2.2008. Even in that representation there was no complaint as to the custody of the detenue from 21.1.2008 till she was shown arrested on 23.1.2008 in the ground case. Hence the said contention is also rejected. 5. It is the last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pre-detention representation was not placed before the Advisory Board resulting in prejudice of the detenue's rights. We have carefully gone through the file. It is clearly mentioned therein that only after perusal of all the materials concerned, the Advisory Board had passed the proceedings. In fact the copy of the booklet supplied to the detenue was also placed before the Advisory Board for perusal and it was accordingly perused by the Board. Hence the contention as to the placing of the pre- detention representation before the Advisory Board has no legs to stand and accordingly, the said contention is also rejected. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the detention order and there is no valid ground for quashing the same. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ss To 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009 2. The District Collector & District Magistrate Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai 3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras H.C.P.No.195 of 2008 nm(co) pmk/11.8.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/