A. Natarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu

V. Kanagaraj, J.—This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother in law of the detenu Palani, praying for a direction to call for

records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent dated 14.8.2003 in Order No. C3.D.O.No. 80 of 2003 whereby the said authority has

detained the detenu branding him as a ''bootlegger'' under preventive detention invoking the provisions of Act 14/1982 on ground that he is a threat

to the maintenance of public order, and to direct the respondents to produce the said detenu now detained in Central Prison, Vellore, before this

Court and to set him at liberty.

The detention order passed by the detaining authority the 2nd respondent herein, the District Magistrate and District collector Vellore District,

Vellore, would show that the detenu is a ""Bootlegger"" and he has already been involved in ten other cases shown as adverse cases as that of the

ground case and in all the adverse cases registered against him he got convicted and therefore, concluding that his presence is a threat to

maintenance of the public order, thus invoking the provisions of Act 14 of 1982 and as per his order dated 14.8.2003, the detenu has been

detained under preventive detention, testifying the validity of which the petitioner has come forward to file the above Habeas Corpus Petition.

Today when the above matter was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and

the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side, the learned counsel for the petitioner would lay emphasis on the legal point that earlier the

Advisory Board was to meet on 18.9.2003 and the same got postponed and since the detenu was to be brought from Vellore to Chennai inspite

of having made arrangements, he was not able to be produced before the Board because of postponing of the Board meeting to 23.9.2003 and

the same had been passed only on 20.9.2003 and the subsequent dates 21.9.2003 and 22.9.2003 being public holidays, no proper intimation was

able to be made to the detenu regarding the Board meeting, as a result of which the detenu was not in a position to seek assistance of his friend or

relative and this is a violation of the procedure established by law and his valuable right of seeking assistance of his friend or relative has been

affected and hence at this score itself would seek the detention order set aside and the detenu set at liberty.

On the part of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) also, there is no denying of these facts of the postponement of the Advisory

Board meeting and the fixation of the date of Advisory Board meeting as 23.9.2003 and the intimation having been sent on 20.9.2003, it is to the

presumption of this court that no proper intimation has been given to the detenu well in advance as required under law so as to exercise his

valuable right of seeking the assistance of his relative or friend during his appearance before the court which has been denied and hence the

following order:-

For the foregoing reasons assigned, this court is of the view that the above Habeas Corpus Petition should be allowed and the same is ordered

accordingly.

In result,

The above Habeas Corpus Petition succeeds and is allowed.

The order of detention dated 14.8.2003 passed by the 2nd respondent as per his order C3.D.O. No. 80/2003 is set aside.

Consequently, the detenu is set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in some other cause or case.