1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH H.C.P.(MD)No.632 of 2011 Pakkiyalakshmi : Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District,Dindigul. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District. : Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in detention order No.05 of 2011 dated 25.07.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's husband by name Ravi @ Muttaikan Ravi son of Thillaiappan, aged about 53 years, detained in Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.N.Jothi Addl.Public Prosecutor ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J.] This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the detention order of the second respondent, in detention order No.05/2011, dated 25.07.2011, and quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Ravi @ Muttaikan Ravi, son of Thillaiappan, aged about 53 years, detained in the Madurai Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and to set him at liberty, forthwith. 2. The petitioner has stated that she is the wife of the detenu. She has stated that, by virtue of the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 25.07.2011, under Section 3(2) 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. (for short 'Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982'), her husband, Ravi @ Muttaikan Ravi, aged about 53 years, had been termed as a “Goonda” and detained in the Madurai Central Prison, Madurai. The petitioner has stated that the order of the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent, dated 25.07.2011, is arbitrary and illegal, as it has been passed by the second respondent, without proper application of mind. 3. It had been further stated that the detaining authority had not recorded his subjective satisfaction relating to the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case, as seen from paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, wherein, it has been stated that the detaining authority was aware that the accused Ravi @ Muttaikan Ravi, the detenu, is in remand, in the District Jail, Dindigul, in connection with Crime No.815 of 2011, under Section 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, on the file of the Dindigul Town North Police Station and that the accused Ravi @ Muttaikan Ravi, has not filed any bail petition in the Court, so far. However, it has been stated that if he is let to remain at large, he would further indulge in activities, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order. Therefore, it is clear that the detaining authority had not applied his mind before arriving at the conclusion that the detenu is a “Goonda” and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detention order, dated 25.07.2011, has been passed by the second respondent, without application of mind. Therefore, it is bad in the eye of law. He had further stated that the relevant documents had not been placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority. In paragraph 5 of the detention order, it has been stated that the detenu had not filed any bail petition in the ground case, in Crime No.815 of 2011. The said statement made by the detaining authority is contrary to the facts of the case. In fact, the detenu, who is an accused in Crime No.815 of 2011, had preferred a bail petition before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, which had been dismissed, on 20.07.2011, in Cr.M.P.No.4721 of 2011. Thereafter, the detenu had filed another bail petition, in the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, in Cr.M.P.No.1753 of 2011, on 21.07.2011. Inspite of the pendency of the said bail petition, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, the detaining authority had stated, in paragraph 5 of the detention order that the detenu/accused has not filed any bail petition in the Court, so far. As such, it is clear that the sponsoring authority had not placed all the relevant records before the detaining authority to pass a considered detention order. 4.1. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on a Division Bench of this Court, in P.Chellaiah Vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 608, wherein, it has been held that the detaining authority is bound to consider all the relevant materials placed before him, before arriving at his subjective satisfaction to pass an order of detention. However, there may be materials which may be merely referred to by the detaining authority and there may be some materials which may be actually relied upon by the detaining authority to pass the detention order. Further, the sponsoring authority should furnish all the materials available before it, to the detaining authority, to enable the detaining authority to apply its mind, with regard to those materials and in case, if the sponsoring authority, within whose knowledge certain materials were available, had not forwarded the same to the detaining authority, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 order of detention would get vitiated, on the ground that the sponsoring authority has not placed all the relevant materials before the detaining authority. 5. In view of the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the decision cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that the second respondent had passed the detention order, dated 25.07.2011, without proper application of mind. It is clear that the sponsoring authority had not placed all the relevant records before the detaining authority for the passing of the said detention order. In paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention, it has been stated that the detenu/accused had not filed any bail petition in the ground case, in Crime No.815 of 2011. However, it is seen from the records available before this Court that the detenu/accused had filed a bail petition on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul, in Cr.M.P.No.1753 of 2011, in Crime No.815 of 2011, and it had not been disposed of, on the date of the passing of the detention order. While so, the statement in paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention that no bail application had been filed by the detenu/accused in the Court, so far, cannot be said to be correct. 6. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the detention order, dated 25.07.2011, passed by the second respondent. Consequently, the detenu is set at liberty, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Since, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not raised any other grounds during his arguments before this Court, to set aside the detention order, dated 25.07.2011, this Court does not find it necessary to examine the other grounds raised in the Habeas Corpus petition, including the grounds relating to the delay in considering the representations submitted on behalf of the detenu. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) TO 1.The Secretary to Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District,Dindigul. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District. Ssm GH : 29.11.2011 : 3p/4c H.C.P.(MD)No.632 of 2011 02.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/