Anandan vs The District Magistrate and District Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District and Another

Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Anandan is the brother of Raghu, who has been detained as a Forest offender, under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of

1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 5.5.1995, passed by the first Respondent, District Magistrate and District Collector, North

Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

We do not deem it necessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order, for, this habeas corpus petition will have

to be allowed on the short ground of lack of proper communication to the close relations of the detenu about the passing of the impugned order of

detention and the place of detention. A communication dated 6.5.1995 addressed to Krishna Manthiri, father of the detenu, was affixed on the

wall of the house of the detenu on 8.5.1995 and the reason for such affixture has been stated in the memorandum, which shows that the relations of

the detenu, refused to accept the intimation. This return made by the officials concerned does not indicate that Krishna Manthiri, father of the

detenu, on whom it was sought to be served, was available at mat point of time and he had refused to accept service. If that be the case, the

position might have been different. If the relations of the detenu who have not been named in the intimation, had refused to accept that intimation, it

can well be understood, for, apparently it was not addressed to them, but specifically to Krishnan Manthiri. The serving authority ought to have

taken efforts to serve on Krishna Manthiri and in the event of his refusal, then they could have served by affixture. That not being the case, the law

laid down by the Supreme Court A.K. Roy and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and the purpose for which such intimation is

intended, get certainly thwarted. On this sole ground, the detenu is bound to succeed.

The impugned order of detention shall stand quashed. Detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is otherwise required.

This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.