IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.1.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1348 of 2007 Shanthi .. Petitioner Vs 1. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram. 2. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. .. Respondents ----- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. ----- For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arasu Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor ----- O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) Aggrieved by the order of incarceration dated 9.7.2007 of the first respondent under the provisions 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), by which one Saravanan, son of Masi @ Masilamani, aged about 28 years, now confined to Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai branding him as a Goonda, the petitioner, wife of the detenu, seeks a writ of Habeas https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 9.7.2007 in Proceedings No.B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V.No.44/2007, 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. The ground case is said to have taken place on 16.6.2007 at about 6.45 pm. At that time, the complainant Rajkumar was returing from Alambaraikuppam. Near East Coast Road, the detenu waylaid the complainant and threatened him to hand over the money at the knife point. The complainant refused to part with money. Immediately, the detenu using abusive words, forcibly took Rs.550/- from the shirt pocket of the complainant. When he complainant tried to prevent the detenu, the detenu assaulted him. The complainant shouted with fear and escaped from the attack. On noticing the public rushing for rescue of the complainant, the detenu threatened them that they would be killed and made them to run on all sides seeking shelter resulting in traffic dislocation. A case was registered in Crime No.318/2007 on the file of Chunambedu Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 397, IPC. The detenu was arrested on 17.6.2007. 3. Taking note of the above case as ground case and five adverse cases in Crime Nos.234/2004, 593/2005, 214/2006 and 372/2006 on the file of Chunambedu Police Station for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 read with 149, 324, 506(ii), 392, 307 read with 3 and 5 of Explosives Substances Act and Crime No.813/2006 on the file of Thirukalukundram Police Station for the offence under Section 397, IPC, the first respondent ordered the detention of detenu dubbing him as a Goonda. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention on the ground that the specific plea made by the detenu in his representation dated 13.8.2007 that he was arrested on 10.6.2007 itself and he was kept under the police custody till 17.6.2007 and a false case has been foisted on him, was not considered by the first respondent in the order of rejection and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated on the ground of non application of mind. 5. A perusal of the representation made by the detenu dated 13.8.2007 makes it clear that there was a specific plea that he was arrested on 10.6.2007 itself and he was kept under the police custody till 17.6.2007 and on 17.6.2007, he was produced before the Court with regard to the foisted case. However, the second respondent, while considering the representation of the detenu, had not chosen to deny the specific allegation of the detenu that he was arrested on 10.6.2007 in the order of rejection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the first respondent had not applied his mind while considering the representation made on behalf of the detenu. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is quashed. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. Consequently, the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. kpl Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. To 1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The District Magistrate & District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. Akr (co) dv/19.2. H.C.P.No.1348 of 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/