Jegannathan vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Jegannathan, who was detained as a ""Bootlegger"" as contemplated u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu

Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers

Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"") by the impugned order of detention dated 27.01.200, challenges the same in this petition.

Heard both sides.

At the foremost, the learned Counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the reference made in paragraph 3 of the grounds of

detention viz., the remaining I.D arrack and fermented wash were destroyed at the spot a ""certificate"" was prepared to that effect, submitted that

no such certificate was prepared as per Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and the only document available is destruction

mahazar. According to him, in the absence of the certificate as stated in paragraph 3 of the detention order, it is presumed that the detaining

authority has not applied his mind while passing the detention order. He has also heavily relied on the decision of this Court dated 25.09.2003 in

HCP No. 2580 of 2002, which was followed by this Court in HCP No. 140 of 2006 by an order dated 13.06.2006. In that case, before the

Division Bench, a similar contention was raised. A perusal of the details mentioned in the said decision shows that in that case also the destruction

mahazar alone was prepared and a copy was supplied to the detenu. However, as in the present case, the detaining authority therein referred to

the said document as a certificate prepared u/s 32 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The Division Bench after finding that the document

available in the paper book does not amount to certificate in terms of Section 32 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and after holding that

the detaining authority has not applied his mind, quashed the detention order.

On going through the factual details in our case, particularly the reference made in para 3 as well as the document, we are of the view that the

decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is directly applicable to the case on hand. Inasmuch as the detaining authority has

referred the destruction mahazar as a certificate in terms of Section 32 of The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, we are satisfied that the detaining

authority has not properly applied his mind and on this ground the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is

quashed.

The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith

from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.