Usha Mary vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the daughter of the detenue, by name Chithra, who is 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, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 12.07.2006,

challenges the same in this Petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that pre-detention representations dated 23.06.2006 and 26.06.2006 were not

duly considered. He also submitted that it is not clear when these representations were considered and intimated to the petitioner. By pointing out

the inconsistency in the English and Tamil version of grounds of detention as well as the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the

learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind on the part of

the detaining authority.

In the light of the above submission, we have verified para 5(a) of the ground of detention. Both in English and Tamil version of the grounds of

detention, reads as under.

5(a) A pre-detention petitions dated 23.06.2006 and 26.06.2006 from her daughter Tmt. Ushameri, W/o Rajkumar received by the detaining

authority and the remarks of the Sponsoring Authority was obtained and the above petitions were duly considered and rejected and endorsement

served to the petitioner on 11.06.2006.

5(a) ""VERNACULAR PORTION DELETED

It is clear that when the representations are dated 23.06.2006 and 26.06.2006, the same cannot be considered and rejected on 11.06.2006 as

stated in the English version of the grounds of detention. Though it is correctly stated viz., 11.07.2006 in the Tamil version of the grounds of

detention, the second respondent, who is none else than the District Magistrate and District Collector, who filed a counter affidavit, has stated that

those representations were rejected by the proceedings dated 09.06.2006. It is unfortunate that when he is aware of the fact that both the pre-

detention representations were dated 23.06.2006 and 26.06.2006, it is not clear how he mentioned that those representations were rejected by

the proceedings dated 09.06.2006. The said statement of fact, which is available at para 10 of the counter affidavit of the Collector,

Thiruvannamalai District, amply shows that he has not taken care to verify the dates and events mentioned in the counter affidavit, when he is a

party to the said document. In view of the inconsistent stand taken in the grounds of detention and the counter affidavit filed before this Court, we

are of the view that the ultimate detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind and accordingly, the same is

quashed.

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

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