High CourtsDivision Bench(2006) 06 MAD CK 0103

E. Muniappa vs The District Magistrate and District Collector and The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court · Decided on 19 June 2006

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Dhanapalan, J · P. Sathasivam, J
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 264 of 2006

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 324 words

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the uncle of the detenu by name Munikrishnappa, who was 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 and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"") by the impugned order of detention dated

24.12.2005, challenges the same in this petition.

2.

Heard both sides.

3.

At the foremost, the learned Counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the averments made in para 6 of the grounds of detention,

contended that inasmuch as the detenu was not informed properly through whom he can make a representation to the Chairman, Advisory Board,

Chennai-600 002 and in the absence of the said information, according to him, the detention order is vitiated.

4.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision rendered in HCP. No. 120 of 2006 dated 24.04.2006. As rightly pointed

out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, while informing the detenu that if he wishes to make a representation to the District Magistrate and

District Collector or to the State Government, it should be forwarded through the Superintendent, Central Prison; but no such information is given

relating to the representation to the Chairman, Advisory Board, Chennai-600 002. Though full address has been furnished as to the Chairman,

Advisory Board, Chennai-600 002, as rightly pointed out, there is no reference through whom the said representation is to be made to the

Chairman, Advisory Board, Chennai-600 002. In such circumstances, in the light of the defect pointed out, we hold that the said defect has caused

prejudice in making effective representation, questioning the order of detention.

5.

On this ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed; accordingly, quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.