AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu by name Arjunan, 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 10.02.2006,
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 and 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, which finds place at page 56 of the paper book supplied to the detenu. 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. 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 paragraph 3 as well as the document available at page 56 of
the paper book, 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 that 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.