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.1606 of 2007 Pushpavalli .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, 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.A.D.Jagadish Chandra For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, mother of the detenu by name Maya @ Mayakrishnan, who was incarcerated at Central Prison, Chennai, by order dated 11.9.2007 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.368/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 M-1 Madhavaram Police Station Cr.No.353/2007 under Sections 395 r/w 397 and 506(2) IPC. On 11.8.2007 at about 12.30 hours, while the complainant Jothi was proceeding in his motor cycle near a bus stop, the detenu along with four others waylaid him and at the knife point, took away cash of Rs.1,100/- and removed the gold ring. On hearing his hue and cry, the public came for his rescue and tried to apprehend the accused, which went in vein as the accused hurled soda bottles and created terror in the minds of the public, resulting in the panic situation and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dislocation of traffic. During investigation, the detenu was arrested and later, sent to Court for judicial remand. 2.2.The Detaining Authority taking note of the ground case as well as four adverse cases of similar nature, viz. in M-2 MM Colony P.S. Cr.Nos.94/2007 and 133/2007, in B2 Thiruvallur Taluk P.S. Cr.No.316/2007 and in B-6 Mappedu P.S. Cr.No.171/2007, 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 18.10.2007 made on behalf of the detenu as the date of his arrest. In the representation, it is contended that the detenu was taken even on 7.8.2007 by the police and was kept in the illegal custody till 11.8.2007 and he was not arrested on 11.8.2007 as stated by the detaining authority in the detention order. However, in the rejection order dated 5.11.2007, 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 is stated that the detenu was arrested on 11.8.2007 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 7.8.2007 by the police and was kept in their illegal custody and thereafter, a false case was foisted on him. However, the first respondent, while passing the order of rejection dated 5.11.2007 rejecting the representation dated 18.10.2007, had not considered the said plea raised on behalf of the detenu as to his arrest. 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 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. sra Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9. +1 cc to Mr.P.S.Amal Raj, Advocate Sr.No.124. IV(CO) DCP/9.1 H.C.P.No.1606 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/