IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.1.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P.No.1670 of 2007 P.Tamilarasan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Chennai-8. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Soundar Vijaj Arul Ram 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 second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenue – Tamilselvi, sister of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenue is a Bootlegger and she 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). 2.1. The order of detention dated 17.4.2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case in Crime No.79 of 2007 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing Washermenpet Unit for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, which was registered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pursuant to the prohibition raid conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police and his police party. During prohibition raid conducted on 31.3.2007, they found the detenue selling arrack. The detenue was apprehended and the contraband was seized. The samples were sent for chemical analysis and report reveals that the sample of arrack contained 10.7%mg of Atropine per 100 ml, and the same would endanger life. 2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of three adverse cases pending against the detenue, viz., Crime Nos.145, 185 and 198 of 2006 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing Washermenpet Unit for the offences punishable under Sections 4(1)(A)(aa) and 4(1) (A)(a)of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 2.3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenue is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and public health, passed the impugned order. 3. Challenging the said detention, the brother of the detenue has preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and to call for the records of the respondents relating to the order of detention vide proceedings No.167/2007, dated 17.4.2007, to set aside the same and to set the detenue at liberty. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though as per the detention order the detenue was arrested on 31.3.2007, in the representation made by the detenue on 19.5.2007 she had clearly stated that she was arrested on 2.3.2007 itself, but the said point was not at all considered by the Government while disposing the said representation by order dated 7.6.2007, and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 6. A perusal of the detention order discloses that the detenue was arrested on 31.3.2007. However, in the representation made on behalf of the detenue dated 19.5.2007 she had clearly stated that she was arrested on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.3.2007 itself. But, the Government, while disposing of the said representation by proceedings dated 7.6.2007 had not considered the said contradiction with regard to the date of arrest raised by the detenue. In our considered opinion, the non-consideration of the said vital aspect of the case, viz., as to the date of the arrest, when a serious dispute is raised, vitiates the detention order. For the reason aforesaid, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 17.4.2007 is set aside. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless her presence is required connection with in any other crime. No costs. sasi Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To: 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CHENNAI CITY,CHENNAI 3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVT PUBLIC LAW AND ORDER DEPARTMENT, FORT ST GEORGE, CHENNAI. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, CHENNAI. AVM (co) sg 31/01/08 H.C.P.No.1670 of 2007 8.1.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/