IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 05.09.2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR HCP.No.660/2006 Ramachandran .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise XII Department, St George Fort, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeaus corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenue viz., Chinnaponnu @ Valli, wife of Rajkumar (Irusammal(, who is now detained in Special Prison for Women, Vellore in pursuance of the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in B.D.FF.G.I.S.V.No.25/2006 dated 30.6.2006 before this Court, call for the records set-aside the order and set the detenue at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran For Respondents: Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, Addl. Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER (Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM, J.) The petitioner, who is the nephew of the detenue, by name Chinnaponnu, who is detained as “Bootlegger” as contemplated under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, drug offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982) by the impugned detention order dated 30.6.2006, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the detaining authority failed to consider the pre-detention representation dated 19.06.2006 from the daughters of the detenue, the impugned detention order is to be quashed. Elaborating the above point, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy of the representation dated 19.6.2006 sent by R.Kalpana, R.Kanchana, R.Ravitha, the daughters of Chinnaponnu, the detenue in this case. The said representation was addressed to the Detaining Authority, viz., the District Collector, Kancheepuram District. The learned counsel also placed acknowledgement card duly received by the Office of the Collectorate. 4. In addition to the above information, the learned counsel has brought to our notice that in the post detention representation dated 8.7.2006, one Rajkumar, husband of the detenue, made a representation to the Government wherein there is a specific reference to the representation dated 19.06.2006 addressed to the District Collector-the Detaining Authority. In the light of the above mentioned information and the particulars placed before this Court, we are satisfied that the daughters of the detenue had submitted a representation on 19.6.06 to the Detaining Authority. However, the same has not been considered by the Detaining Authority. 5. In this regard, it is useful to refer a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in (2006) 1 M.L.J.(crl.) 131 (P.M.S.Mohiadeen Sahib Vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Public (SC) Department, Chennai and others). In similar circumstances, after finding that pre- detention representation was received by the concerned Detaining https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Authority and also taking note of the fact that the pre-detention representation had been referred to in the subsequent representation received after passing of the detention order, the Division Bench after finding, held that the Detaining Authority ought to have verified the earlier representation and passed appropriate order after due consideration, failure to do so, vitiates the quashing of the detention order. 6. In view of the identical factual aspects mentioned above, we are of the view that the said decision is applicable to the case on hand. 7. In these circumstances, the impugned order of detention is set aside and the petition is allowed. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless she is required in some other or cause. ap Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise XII Department, State of Tamil Nadu, St George Fort, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. 3. The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Vellore. 4. The Publice Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government, (Law & Order) Department, Fort st George, Chennai 9. + 1 cc to Mr. S. Swamidoss Manokaran, Advocate SR No. 40735 KLT(CO) SR/13.9.2006 HCP.No.660/2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/