Chinnadurai vs State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 17.01.2006, detaining him as ''Bootlegger'' as

contemplated under 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).

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

At the foremost, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to paragraph No. 5(a) of the grounds of detention,

submitted that though the Detaining Authority has specifically referred to the representation petition given by Smt. Pathipooranam, sister of the

detenu, which was considered and rejected, in spite of the specific request made by the detenu, copy of the same was not furnished to him, which

vitiates the detention order passed against the detenu.

With reference to the said contention, we verified paragraph No. 5(a) of the grounds of detention. In the said paragraph, after referring to

several details including the representation of Smt. Jayakodi, mother of the detenu, the Detaining Authority has also referred to the representation

petition given by Smt. Pathipooranam, who is none else than the sister of the detenu. It further shows that the said representation was duly

examined and considered by the Detaining Authority based on the remarks of the Sponsoring Authority, and ultimately came to be rejected. No

doubt, the same was duly served to the person concerned. It is brought to our notice that, in the representation dated 11.02.2006, the detenu has

specifically requested the Government to supply a copy of the representation made by her sister. The said representation is available at page Nos.

9 and 10 of the typed set filed along with this Petition. In spite of the specific request for supply of copy of the representation of Pathipooranam, it

is not clear as to why the first respondent has not furnished the same. Inasmuch as the Detaining Authority has specifically referred to the

representation of the sister of the detenu, we are of the view that copy of the same ought to have been furnished to the detenu in order to make

further representation, if any. Failure to do so, vitiates the order passed by the Detaining Authority.

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

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