Balaraman vs State of Tamil Nadu

Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Balaraman is the father of detenu Chandran, who has been detained as a forest offender under Tamil Nadu Act

14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 24.9.1993, passed by the second respondent, District Magistrate and Collector,

Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar District with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public

order and health.

It will be totally unnecessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order, for, on the short ground of lack of

material before the detaining authority to express his awareness that the detenu was on remand on the date on which the impugned order was

passed, petitioner is bound to succeed.

Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, pointed out paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention wherein

the detaining authority has stated that he was aware that the detenu was in remand and there was imminent possibility that he may come out on bail.

This statement was made on 24.9.93 when the impugned order was passed. Affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority furnished to the detenu was

sworn to on 21st September, 1993, wherein he has stated that the detenu was produced duly before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur,

and remanded, and was lodged in Central Prison, Vellore. This affidavit will indicate that on 21.9.93 detenu was in remand. At page 118 of the

paper book supplied to the detenu, a remand warrant is found, wherein it is indicated that the detenu was directed to be kept in remand from 8-9-

1993 for 15 days and had to be produced over again before the concerned Court at 10 a.m. on 22.9.1993. It is not known whether on 22.9.93

remand was extended or the detenu was released. When there is no material available, it is not known as to how the detaining authority has stated

in the ground of detention that he was aware that the detenu was in remand on 24.9.1993. If the said statement is correct, he must have relied

upon extraneous material not supplied to the detenu. Either way 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.