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.1521 of 2007 Sargunam .. Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri. .. 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.P.M.Duraiswamy 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 detenu, who was incarcerated by order dated 31.3.2007 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 31.3.2007 in Ref.No.S.C.No.6/2007 against the petitioner, now confined at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Central Prison, Salem, 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 order of detention dated 31.3.2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 11.3.2007, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Chinnaraji before the Sub Inspector of Police, Barur Police Station. According to the complainant, he was consuming arrack daily. On 11.3.2007, he went to Kaveriyur Koravar Kottai and purchased two tumblers of arrack from the detenu for a sum of Rs.20/-. While consuming, he felt more odour. On consuming arrack, he felt more irritation in throat, dizziness and irritation in eyes and also felt giddiness. Suspecting that the detenu would have mixed some drug to give more booze and to prevent others from drinking the said arrack, he lodged a complaint to take necessary action. 3. The second respondent, taking note of this case as a ground case and finding that there are seven adverse cases against the detenu in Crime Nos.41/2004, 127/2004, 157/2004, 194/2004, 207/2005, 190/2006 and 8/2007 on the file of Barur Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(i) of 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 challenges the impugned order of detention dated 31.3.2007 on the only ground that the pre-detention representation dated 16.3.2007 sent by the wife of the detenu, has not been considered by the detaining authority before passing the detention order, which vitiates the order of detention. 5. It is well settled that any pre-detention representation made by the detenu or on his behalf should be considered by the detaining authority and if for some reason it is not possible to consider such representation before the order of detention is passed, such representation should be thereafter considered as expeditiously as possible. 6. Concededly, the wife of the detenu has made a representation on 16.3.2007 requesting not to detain her husband under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and the detaining authority, while passing the detention order dated 31.3.2007, has not taken into consideration the said representation dated 16.3.2007, which shows the non-application of mind and hence, in our considered opinion, vitiates the impugned order of detention. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. In the result, the impugned order of detention dated 31.3.2007 is quashed and the Habeas corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu Sargunam is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with 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 Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri. 3. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 9. 4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Salem. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. • 1 cc to Mr. P. M. Duraisamy, Advocate SR No. 245 RSU(CO) SR/10.1.2008 H.C.P.No.1521 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/