IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.01.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1380 of 2007 Annamalai .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, father of the detenu by name Achudhan, who was incarcerated at Central Prison, Chennai, by order dated 3.4.2007 of the second respondent under the provisions 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 Goonda, seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the said order of detention made in Memo No.138/BDFGISSV/2007, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. 2.1.The impugned order of detention came to be passed based on the ground case registered in K-10 Koyambedu Police Station Cr.No.286/2007 under Sections 341, 397, 336, 427 and 506(2) IPC. On 23.3.2007 at about 4.30 p.m., while the complainant Rajan was proceeding by walk, the detenu intercepted him and by holding the knife over his stomach, threatened to part with his money and when the complainant tried to move away, he threatened and snatched his wrist watch and cash of Rs.290/- from him and tried to fled from the scene in his motor cycle. On hearing the cry of the complainant, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ public came to his rescue and on seeing the public, the detenu pelted stones on them and out of fear, the public ran for safer places resulting in the dislocation of traffic and taking advantage of the panic situation, when the detenu tried to escape, the police personnel with the help of the public apprehended the detenu and he was taken to the police station. 2.2.The Detaining Authority taking note of the ground case as well as seven adverse cases, viz. in K-10 Koyambedu P.S. Cr.Nos.1024/2006, 1238/2006 and 280/2007 for offences under Sections 457, 379 and 380 IPC., in S-10 Pallikaranai P.S. Cr.Nos.2538/2006 and 619/2007, in Vellimedupet P.S. Cr.No.48/2007 for the offence under Section 379 IPC and in V3 JJ Nagar P.S. Cr.No.266/2007 for the offence under Section 392 IPC, having satisfied that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the impugned detention order on the detenu. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention on the ground of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, as the detaining authority had not considered the specific plea raised in the representation dated 4.9.2007 made on behalf of the detenu. In the representation, it is contended that the detenu was taken even on 17.3.2007 by the police and was kept in the illegal custody till 23.3.2007 and not on 23.3.2007, as stated by the detaining authority in the detention order. However, in the rejection order dated 26.09.2007, the Government has not adverted to this important contention but has simply rejected the representation. 4.We have perused the entire materials placed before us. Even though in the grounds of detention, it was stated that the detenu was arrested on 23.3.2007 with respect to the ground case, in the representation made on behalf of the detenu, it has been specifically stated that the detenu was taken even on 17.3.2007 and was kept in their illegal custody and thereafter, a false case was foisted on him. However, the second respondent, while passing the order of rejection dated 26.9.2007 rejecting the representation of the petitioner dated 4.9.2007, had not considered the contention raised by the learned counsel as to the arrest of the detenu. 5.We are, therefore, satisfied that the detaining authority had not taken note of the above fact, which shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Accordingly, the order of detention is vitiated and the same is set aside. The Habeas Corpus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition is allowed and 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. sra To 1. The Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public [Law and Order] Fort St. George, Chennai 9,. H.C.P.No.1380 of 2007 ng[co] gp/9.1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/