T. Kali and another vs The District Magistrate and Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore and another

Arunachalam, J.—These two habeas corpus petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since both the detenus are stated to be

concerned in the same forest crime. Further, the solitary argument advanced on their behalf is identical.

Carelessness exhibited by the detaining Authority in the follow up action, after the preventive orders were passed, is the sole cause for our

allowing these two habeas corpus petitions.

Detenue Kali was directed to be detained as a forest offender under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated

25.11.93 passed by the respondent, District Magistrate and Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore with a view to preventing him

from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health.

Similarly, detenu Sundaramoorthy, (Petitioner in H.C.P.No.23/94) was directed to be detained as a forest offender, in pursuance of an order of

detention passed by the same authority for the same purpose.

It will be totally unnecessary to state the facts, which led to the passing of the impugned orders, for these habeas corpus petitions, as stated

earlier, will have to be allowed on the single ground urged.

Both the petitioners were served with a telex message in English on 9.12.1993. Endorsements made on the telex message show that the

contents of the telex message stood explained to both the petitioners in Tamil, the language known to them. It is, after understanding the contents of

the telex message, petitioners concerned had affixed either thumb impression or signature as the case may be, authenticated and attested by the

Joint Superintendent. Central Prison, Vellore. This telex message shows that the orders of detention passed against these two petitioners stood

revoked. If the petitioners had been informed that the orders passed against them had been revoked, it is not known as to how they could have

been detained even after such revocations, intimated to them on 9.12.1993.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by placing the detention file before us, submitted that the original telex message shows that the orders of

detention were approved and not revoked However, we are concerned with the message conveyed to the detenus by the authorities concerned.

This message clearly informed them, that their orders of detention have been revoked. The effect, of such service, of a message or revocation, can

easily be comprehended. If the petitioners were informed within about a fortnight, about revocation of the preventive orders passed against them,

they would not have taken steps diligently and promptly to make purposeful and effective representation against the impugned orders. To that

extent, prejudice to the case of the detenus is so apparent. If the authorities concerned do not apply their mind, to the contents of the documents

sought to be served on the detenus it can only be concluded, that follow up actions in preventive orders are mechanically done, without any

sanctity attached to them.

Since we are satisfied that the detenus have been prejudiced they will be entitled to the relief prayed for by them. The impugned orders of

detention shall stand set aside. Detenus are directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless their detentions are otherwise required. These Habeas

Corpus petitions are allowed.