AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Viramani has been detained as a bootlegger, under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of
detention dated 26.11.1993, passed by the first Respondent, District Magistrate and Collector, Nagapattinam, with a view to preventing him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health.
It will be totally unnecessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order, for this habeas corpus petition, will have
to be allowed, on the short ground of non-intimation to the close relations of the detenu about the passing of this impugned order and the jail in
which he stood confined.
In A.K. Roy and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Supreme Court has stressed the need for immediate service of intimation on the
close relations of the detenu to make it possible for him to arrange for an affective and purposeful representation, against the impugned order.
Subsequently, Supreme Court explained the principles laid down in A.K. Roy''s case. However, in the instant case, it was conceded by the State,
that intimation was not sought to be served on the detenu. We were further told by Petitioner''s Counsel that no representation was ever sent.
Since the Petitioner was handicapped due to non-service of intimation on his close relations, he was not able to obtain legal aid for quite a length of
time. On the facts available, we are satisfied that there has been a breach of the mandate laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy''s case.
That would suffice to hold in favour of the detenu.
The impugned order of detention shall stand set aside. Detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is otherwise required.
This habeas corpus petition is allowed.