Vijayakumari vs District Magistrate and Collector of NA District at Vellore and others

K.M. Natarajan, J.—This writ petition is for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for directing the respondents to produce the detenu Settu now confined in Central Prison. Vellore before this court and set him at liberty.

The detenu came to the adverse notice of the detaining authority as a habitual forest offender in view of six cases referred to in the preamble and has been detained on the basis of the ground case. The details of the cases leading to the passing of the impugned order of detention have been stated in the grounds of detention, which is served with detention. Hence it is needless to reiterate the same in view of the limited plea taken in this writ petition. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several picas challenging the impugned order of detention, he has confined his argument only to Ground No.(e) of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, wherein it is averred as follows:

I humbly submit that careful reading of the record pertaining to the cases referred to as incidents in the ground''s of detention furnished to the detenu would reveal that the alleged activities of the detenu dealing in sandalwood have got nothing to do in respect of danger to ecological system. There are no materials on facts alleged in the said cases that the detenu had in any manner caused danger to the ecological system. The sandalwood alleged to have been removed were only dried sandalwood and by any stretch of imagination the cutting of dried sandal woods could never cause danger to the ecological system.

The paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention.-

By himself indulging in sandalwood smuggling cases, he has been acting as an instrument, causing incalculable damage to the delicately balanced Eco-system in which sandal is the only tree offering edible succulent fruits twice a year, on which the bird population thrives. By selectively removing the best sandalwood trees, the bird population is drastically reduced, which in turn increases the pest population posing damage to the food web or food chain of the Eco-system. Also by cutting the seed bearing sandal trees, the natural seed fall is being affected which will in turn affect the natural regeneration of sandal thereby causing the disturbance to the ecological system of forest flora and fauna. Thus the delicate equilibrium of the Eco-system of which the human beings are an integral part, is upset by the illegal activities of Thiru Settu.

In reply to the same, in paragraph 6 of the counter it is averred as follows:

As regards the averments in grounds c, d and f of paragraph 17 of the affidavit, the contention is not tenable. The detenu has been detained as a forest offender under the Act. The grounds of detention clearly spell out the activities indulged in by the detenu which affected the ecological system of forest flora and fauna. The delicate equilibrium of the Eco-system of which the human beings are an integral part has been upset by the illegal activities of the detenu. The detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He is a proved dangerous forest offender committing offences repeatedly and habitually. By selectively removing the best green sandalwood trees, the bird population has been drastically reduced, which in turn increases the pest population posing danger to the food web or food chain of the Eco-system. The confessional statements of the tribals in the area testified to the fact how the detenu was indulging in activities by luring the tribals by offering money to do illegal activities of smuggling. Hence the contention to the contra is not correct and is denied.

The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the grounds of detention and the counter affidavit and submitted that though the detaining authority attempted to support the grounds of detention with regard to the ecological system by stating that the confessional statement of the tribals in that area testified to the fact as to how the detenu was indulging in activities by luring the tribals by offering money to do illegal activities of smuggling, the petitioner was not furnished with any such confessional statement of tribals till this dale and further that there was no reference in the grounds of detention, and therefore, the order of detention is bad atleast on that ground. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this court to which one of us (K.M. Natarajan, J.) was a party, reported in Subhash Babu v. State by the Secretary, for Home, Prohibition and Excise Department 1991 L.W.Cri.527, wherein it has been observed as follows:

Admittedly no documents were placed before the detaining authority in support of these allegations. It is clearly spelt oat from the allegations that the detenu is described as a confirmed threat to the ecological system and society and further he is involved in sandalwood smuggling by himself and by employing tribals as coolies and he has been preparing for committing more offences and causing grave and wide-spread danger to the ecological system. Even in the counter, it has riot been stated as to how the allegations were made against the detenu. The authorities cannot escape by saying that it can be inferred and that it is common knowledge and that it can be known only through practical knowledge and experience. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner atleast in the affidavit filed by the forest ranger, he could have stated all these things and necessary documents could have been produced. In our view the above averments are extraneous touching the character of the detenu and it might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority to some extent one way or other in reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision or directing the detention of the detenu. Hence we are of the view that the detention order is suffering from the vice of consideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order as held by the Supreme Court.

This cannot be got over by involving S.5A the Act on the ground that the impugned order can be sustained on other grounds. As held in the above quoted Supreme Court decision, what S.5A provides is that where there are two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu each activity is a separate ground by itself and if one of the grounds is vague, non-existent, not relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such person or invalid for any other reason whatsoever, then that will not vitiate the order of detention. But in the instant case the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the ground case alone which relates to a single incident and which formed a single ground and as such, once if it is found that it is only on the basis of the aforesaid extraneous material placed before the detaining authority, which might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority to some extent one way or other, the order was passed, certainly it becomes invalid and resort under S.5A cannot be made.

The ratio laid down by the said decision would squarely apply to this case as in the instant case also no document was placed before the detaining authority in support of the allegations and even though an attempt has been made in the counter in support of the detention order by referring to some confessional statements recorded from the tribals in that area, such documents were not furnished to the detenu and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the detenu has been deprived of making his effective representation as against those documents. Applying the said ratio, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if she is not required in connection with any other case.