IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.2.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1694 of 2007 P.Vijaya .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Nagapattinam District Nagapattinam. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the Detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in C.O.C.No.63/2007 dated 15.11.2007 in detaining the detenue under 2-b of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Bootlegger and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Pasumpon, Wife of Chinnappa aged about 31 years who is detained at Special Prison for women Tiruchirapalli before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenue-Pasumpon, friend of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenue is a bootlegger and she has to be detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the friend of the detenue has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in C.O.C.No.63 of 2007, dated 15.11.2007 in detaining the detenue as a bootlegger and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenue, now detained at Special Prison for Women, Trichirapalli before this Court and to set her at liberty. 3.1. The order of detention dated 15.11.2007 came to be passed based on the prohibition raid conducted by the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Mayiladuthurai (i/c) Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagapattinam along with his police party on 24.10.2007. The detenue was found selling illicit arrack. When verified they found that she was in possession of 105 litres of Pondicherry arrack in a lorry tube of 120 Litres capacity. They arrack emanated poisonous odour resulting in irritation of eyes. The Inspector of Police arrested the detenue in the presence of witnesses and the contraband was seized. A case was registered in Crime No.2040 of 2007 on the file of Nagapattinam Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1) (aaa), 4(1)(i) read with 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. A perusal of the chemical analysis report of the sample of the arrack discloses that the same was mixed with 7.9% mg.w/v of atropine in 100 ml. and that the same would affect the lungs and heart and is likely to endanger life, even if intensive treatment is given to the patient. 3.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of five adverse case pending against the detenue, viz., Crime No.531 of 2006 and 457 of 2007 on the file of Velippalayam Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1)(aa) and 4(1) (aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act; and Crime Nos. 27, 738 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1532 of 2007 on the file of the Nagapattinam Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offence punishable under Sections 4(1) (aa), 4(1)(a) read with 4(1-A) and 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 3.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenue is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public health and public order, passed the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. We have perused the materials produced before us. 5. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though it is stated by the detaining authority that the detenue was arrested on 24.10.2007, the detenue was actually arrested on 21.10.2007 itself and kept under illegal custody, and even though a representation was made by the learned counsel disputing the date of arrest and alleging illegal detention on 26.11.2007 itself addressed to the second respondent, the same has not been considered till date and therefore, the detention is vitiated. 6. We have perused the materials available on record. We have also perused the representation dated 26.11.2007 made by the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed to the second respondent and the acknowledgment with regard to the service of the same. Concededly, the said representation dated 26.11.2007 made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not considered till date. When a serious dispute was raised as to the date of arrest of the detenue, it it the bounden duty of the respondents to consider such objection raised. Non-consideration of the said representation disputing the very date of occurrence is fatal. For the reason aforesaid, the detention order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This petition is allowed. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless her presence is required connection with in any other crime. No costs. sasi Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To: 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department State of Tamilnadu Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Nagapattinam District Nagapattinam. 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 4. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 5. The Special Prison for Women at Central Prison Campus, Tiruchirapalli. Rl (co) dv/18.3. H.C.P.No.1694 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/