IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.06.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU H.C.P.NO.13 OF 2008 Saravanan @ Kavai Saravanan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8 .. Respondents This habeas corpus petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner Saravanan @ Kavai Saravanan, s/o Chellappan under Act 14/82 as a Goonda vide detention order, dated 26.11.2007 on the file of the second respondent in Memo No.404/BDFGISSV/2007, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before the court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel for Mr.M.Rajavelu For Respondents: Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, APP - - - - ORDER (The order of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 26.11.2007 under Act 14 of 1982, terming the petitioner as Goonda and detaining him under the provisions of the said Act. 2.The affidavit filed in support of the petition and the grounds of challenge are perused. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. The order under challenge is also perused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Consequent upon the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority along with the materials pertaining to Crime Nos.700/2007 and 1208/2007 registered by E.1 Mylapore Police Station, as 2 adverse cases and also a ground case pertaining to Crime No.1441 of 2007 of the said police station and also the other materials, the Detaining Authority has recorded that it has arrived at subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace and hence he was to be termed as Goonda and accordingly, it has passed an order of detention under Act 14 of 1982, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4.The learned counsel in support of the petition, inter-alia, would submit that the petitioner made two bail applications before the Court of Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.Nos.10138 and 10139 of 2007 in respect of Crime No.1208 of 2007, a adverse case and also the other case in Crime No.1441 of 2007 respectively; that both the applications were taken up for consideration and a common order came to be passed, dismissing both the applications as could be seen in page 173 of the booklet; that when the Sponsoring Authority placed special report before the Commissioner of Police, who is the Detaining Authority, the Sponsoring Authority has referred about the bail application filed in Crl.M.P.No.10139 of 2007 and the order of dismissal, but it had not referred to anything about Crl.M.P.No.10138 of 2007 in the adverse case. When these materials are placed before the Detaining Authority, it has also referred to in its order as to the dismissal of bail application in Crl.M.P.No.10139 of 2007, but not referred to Crl.M.P.No.10138 of 2007 or the common order passed, but further, it has also stated that only one bail application was filed and the same was also dismissed and thus, it would clearly indicate that when materials were placed by the Sponsoring Authority, all materials were not placed and hence the Detaining Authority could not arrive at subjective satisfaction in the absence of all materials and under these circumstances, the order of detention is infirm and it has got to be set aside. 5.The Court heard the learned counsel for the State on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6.After doing so and a thorough scrutiny of the materials available, the Court has to necessarily quash the order on the short ground that all the materials available in the hands of the Sponsoring Authority were not placed before the Detaining Authority in order to arrive at subjective satisfaction, as one required by law. In the instant case, an order came to be passed on the strength of the materials placed in respect of two adverse cases and one ground case. In respect of one adverse case and a ground case, two bail applications came to be filed in Crl.M.P.Nos.10138 and 10139 of 2007. Both were taken up jointly by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and by way of common order, they were dismissed. While the matter stood thus, when the Sponsoring Authority placed materials along with the report, it has referred to only Crl.M.P.No.10139 of 2007 and not in respect of the other application. Equally, the Detaining Authority also has pointed out in paragraph 4 of its order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as follows: "I am aware that Thiru Saravanan @ Kavai Saravanan is in remand in E.1 Mylapore Police Station Crime No.1441/2007 and has moved a bail application before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.MP No.10139/2007 and the same was dismissed. I am also aware that he has moved a bail application before the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.O.P.No.34518/2007 and the same was pending. I am also aware that there is most likely of his coming out on bail for the above case, since in similar case bails are granted by the Hon'ble High Court after a lapse of time and he is in jail for the past one month." A reading of the above would clearly indicate that the order is based upon the report and not based upon the materials and further, the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.10138 of 2007 was not placed by the Sponsoring Authority. Apart from that when two applications were filed and a joint order of dismissal was also made, had they been placed before the Detaining Authority, the Authority could have considered that there were two bail applications made and they were dismissed and only then, subjective satisfaction could have been arrived at. Since all the materials pertaining to the bail applications and the orders thereon were not placed, it cannot be stated that the Detaining Authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction in the proper sense. Under these circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that it would be fit and proper to quash the order of detention. 7.Accordingly, the detention order is set aside. The Habeas Corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. vvk To 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI-9. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GREATER CHENNAI, EGMORE CHENNAI-8. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON,PUZHAL CHENNAI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC (LAW AND ORDER) FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI - 9 5. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS. H.C.P.NO.13 OF 2008 ck(co) sra(10/07) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/