1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P.(MD)No.43 of 2011 Thangam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. ... Respondents PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenu viz., Dharmadhas @ Dharmaraj, S/o Yesuvadiyan, aged about 41 years (male) from Central Prison, Palayamkottai in respect of detention order dated 20.11.2010 in P.D.No.16 of 2010 passed by the 1st respondent under Act 14 of 1982 and calling for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's husband and quash the same and thereafter set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.Gomathinayagam for Mr. Mohana Sundararajan For Respondents : Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan,APP ORDER (Order of this Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Dharmadhas @ Dharmaraj. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the 1st respondent in P.D.No.16/2010 dated 20.11.2010 branding the detenu as a “Goonda” under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2.The main ground taken by Mr.Gomathinayagam, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is total non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the detention order. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner firstly pointed out that in the detention order the detaining authority has stated that the detenue is now residing at Church Road, Elanthaiyadi, Vettoornimadam Post, Vadasery Village, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District, whereas, on the date of passing of the detention order even according to the detaining authority, he was detained in the District Jail, Nagercoil. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner secondly pointed out that when the remand was extended periodically from 06.11.2000 to 19.11.2010 and thereafter, upto 03.12.2010, the remand orders were not furnished to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 detenue and it is not even available on the typed set of papers for consideration of the detaining authority. Therefore, there is no cogent material available for the detaining authority to apply his mind. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner thirdly pointed out that when the bail application in the ground case was dismissed on 13.11.2010 and the detaining authority has passed an order that there is a possibility of the detenue coming out of bail which shows non application mind on the part of the detaining authority. The learned counsel further pointed out that on 20.11.2010 within a week the detention order has been passed. 6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detaining authority has not considered the fact that on the date of passing of the detention order, the detenue was in District Jail, Nagercoil, but, the detaining authority has casually mentioned that the detenue is “now at” in the given address. It is also pertinent to note that in the ground case, bail application was dismissed on 30.11.2010 and in spite of that the detaining authority has considered that there is a real possibility of the detenue coming out of bail. Moreover, when the detaining authority has mentioned about two remand orders, none of the remand orders is available before the detaining authority and therefore, there was no cogent material available for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 8.The above facts and circumstances of the case shows non application of mind of the detaining authority while passing the detention order. Therefore, the detention order is liable to be set aside. 9.Accordingly, the detention order in P.D.No.16/2010 dated 20.11.2010 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P & A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. 4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Fort St.George, chennai-9. 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.Mohana Sundararajan, Advocate, SR.No.14990 nbj H.C.P.(MD)No.43 of 2011 26.04.2011 TR : 14.06.2011 : 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/