IIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.1.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR H.C.P.No.1796 of 2007 Mangatha .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State rep. by its Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department St. George Fort Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Cuddalore District Cuddalore. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.Om Sai Ram For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the son of the petitioner viz., Gajendran, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Bootlegger and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of 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). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the petitioner 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 under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 made in Ref.No.C4/D.O./35/2007, dated 1.12.2007 on the file of the second respondent herein, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 3.1. The order of detention dated 1.12.2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No.574 of 2007 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 4(1)(i)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 5 and 6 of the Rectified Spirit Rules (Transport). The allegation against the detenu was that on 7.11.2007 when the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Chidambaram, along with his police party conducted vehicle check near the Periyapattu Bridge, the detenu and his associate came in a Maruthi Suzuki 800 car bearing Registration No.TSD 88. On suspicion, the police intercepted the said car and on search, they found 9 nos. of white colour can with rectified spirit each containing 35 litres of rectified spirit and on noticing the police party, they tried to escape, but were chased and surrounded by the police party. The contraband was seized. The samples of arrack seized were sent for chemical analysis and the Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, issued a certificate to the effect that rectified spirit is poisonous substance and consumption of the same mixed with atropine will cause danger to the life of the general public. 3.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of nine adverse cases pending against the detenu viz., Crime Nos.181/2006, 196/2007 and 199/2007 on the file of Puduchathiram Police Station and Crime Nos.260/2006, 298/2006, 188/2007 337/2007 and 453/2007 on the file of Chidambaram Prohibition Enforcement Wing and Crime No.667/2007 on the file of Cuddalore Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offence punishable under Section 4(1)(aaa) & (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 3.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and public health, passed the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. We have perused the materials produced before us. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand in Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Chidambaram Crime No.574 of 2007 (ground case), the remand requisition found at pages 28, 43, 57, 75 and 105 of the paper book shows that the detenu was remanded in five other cases in Crime Nos.260/2006, 298/2006, 188/2007 337/2007 and 453/2007 (adverse case nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7), which the detaining authority had not taken note of while dealing with the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 6. We have perused the materials placed before us. It is seen that the detaining authority in para 6 of the grounds of detention, while dealing with the remand of the detenu and his possibility of coming out on bail, has only referred to the ground case in Crime No.574 of 2007. But, whereas, the remand requisition found at pages 28, 43, 57, 75 and 105 of the paper book furnished to the detenu shows that the detenu was remanded in five other cases in Crime Nos.260/2006, 298/2006, 188/2007 337/2007 and 453/2007 (adverse case nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7). The non-mentioning of the remand of the detenu in five adverse cases, referred to above, in our considered opinion, would deprive the detenu an opportunity in making his effective representation and hence, has the effect of vitiating the order of detention. For the reason aforesaid, the impugned order of detention dated 1.12.2007 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required connection with in any other case. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ATR https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary State of Tamilnadu Prohibition and Excise Department St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Cuddalore District Cuddalore. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison Cuddalore. 4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public [Law and Order] Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9. + 1 CC To M/s.Om Sairam, Advocate SR NO.2842 HCP No.1796 of 2007. avm[co] gp/4.2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/