Varadhan vs The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, by name Logu @ Loganathan, who is detained as a ''''Goonda"" 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

03.07.2006, 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, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the remand order, which is available at page 143 of the

paper book supplied to the detenu, has contended that the English version of the said document and the translated copy of the remand order,

which is available at page 147, made the detenu confused because of the reference made to two different Courts viz., Judicial Magistrate, Alandur

and V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, which prevented him in making effective representation. We have verified both the documents

available at pages 143 and 144 of the paper book supplied to the detenu. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the

accused surrendered before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and the same learned Magistrate remanded him till 13.06.2006, as

rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a reading of the said order undoubtedly would confuse the mind of the detenu. There

is no clarification or explanation by any one either in the detention order or in the subsequent reply by the Government. We also accept the above

contention.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, by taking us through pages 70 to 74 of the booklet supplied to the detenu, has contended that all the

pages are not legible. She also contended that inspite of the specific representation to the Government, though the Government assured that clear

copies would be supplied, according to her, the copies were not supplied to the detenu. We have verified the relevant pages. As rightly pointed out

by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, some of the pages are not legible and readable. Even after the direction of the Government, as rightly

pointed out, the copies supplied to the detenu are not legible. As pointed out, it is not an empty formality, particularly, when a request was made

on the ground that the copies supplied are not legible. In a matter like this, when the Government assured by way of reply that legible copies would

be supplied, it is but proper to supply the copy of the entire order and the same must be legible and readable. We accept the said contention also.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the special report of the sponsoring authority dated 27.06.2006, has

submitted that some of the information, particularly, in para 5 cannot be true. While elaborating the above contention, she pointed out that the said

report is dated 27.06.2006. However in para 5, the sponsoring authority has stated that the accused persons filed Crl.M.P. No. 7167 of 2006 on

22.06.2006 before the District and Sessions Court, Chenglepet and on the orders of the Court, the same was adjourned to 04.07.2006 and

thereafter to 28.08.2006. It is not clear as to how the sponsoring authority was able to ascertain the adjourned date viz., 28.08.2006 even on

27.06.2006. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is but proper on the part of the detaining

authority to get it clarified. In the absence of the same, it is presumed that the detaining authority has not applied her mind nor concentrated on the

details furnished by the sponsoring authority.

In similar circumstance, a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the unexplained discrepancies found in the special report, has quashed

the detention order on the ground of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority viz., 2000 (2) LW (Cri) 543 (Karthik v. The

Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirapalli City, Tiruchirapalli and Anr.). In view of the discrepancies as pointed out by us in the special report and in

the absence of any clarification by the detaining authority, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench. Accordingly, the

detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground also.

Finally, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inasmuch as the detention order against two co-detenus, who are alleged to

have involved in the ground case, was revoked by the Government on the opinion of the Advisory Board, the present detention in respect of the

detenu by name Logu @ Loganathan is also liable to be quashed. He highlighted the common features and also relied on the earlier decision of this

Court dated 14.09.2004 rendered in HCP No. 484 of 2004, wherein the Division Bench, after considering the issue raised, in depth, with

reference to the opinion of the Advisory Board u/s 12(1) and the orders of the Government, has accepted the said contention and quashed the

detention order. The following conclusion in para 23 is as follows:

... Where, however, the ground case is the same in respect of several detenues, how the case of a co-detenue is considered subsequently, by the

Advisory Board or even the Court, is a relevant circumstance, which the State Government is required to consider at the subsequent stage of

confirmation. This is not to suggest that in every case where the Advisory Board opines regarding the release of a co-detenue detained on the basis

of the same ground case, all the co-detenus are to be released irrespective of other circumstances. We are stressing upon the fact that such a

release is a relevant factor, which should be considered by the State Government and non-consideration of such relevant factor would vitiate the

order of confirmation.

We are in respectful agreement with the said view. As pointed out above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner took pains in taking us through

the factual details and allegations made against the other co-detenus as well as the detenu in this petition. We are satisfied that the detenu in this

case also stands on the same footing. In such circumstances, as observed by the Division Bench, the release of other co-detenus is a relevant

factor to be considered by the Government and failure to do so would vitiate the order of confirmation.

In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. The Habeas

Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.