Mangathai vs The State

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 03.10.2005, detaining her husband by name Sekar as "Bootlegger" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by taking us through paragraph No. 3(e) of the grounds of detention and pointing out that a reference has been made therein that Dr. S. Jayaprakash had given treatment to one Sekar and Vadivel (complainant), contended that though the Detaining Authority has relied on the statement of the said Sekar, the same has not been furnished to the detenu. He also contended that a reading of the said Paragraph gives lot of confusion and in the absence of clarification and failure to supply copy of the statement of Sekar, the ultimate order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

We verified the relevant clause, viz., para No. 3(a) of the grounds of detention as well as the statement of Dr. S. Jayaprakash, who treated several persons including Sekar and Vadivel. As rightly pointed out, though the Detaining Authority has relied upon the statement of Sekar to whom treatment was given by Dr. Jayaprakash, copy of such statement was not supplied to the detenu. In view of the fact that statement of Sekar was relied on by the detaining Authority while passing the order of detention and copy of such statement having not been supplied to the detenu, we are of the view that the detention order is vitiated.

Accordingly, 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.