Vinayagam vs The District Magistrate and Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District and another

Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Vinayagam has been detained as a bootlegger under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 29-12-1993 passed by the first Respondent, District Magistrate and Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.

We do not deem it necessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order, for on the sole ground, that in the order of detention supplied to the detenu in Tamil, the only language known to him, it has not been stated, that there was an imminent possibility of the detenu getting himself released on bail, or there was likelihood of his being released on bail, the Habeas Corpus Petition will have to be allowed.

Though in the grounds, of detention supplied to the detenu in English, the requisite words denoting subjective satisfaction have been correctly stated, in the Tamil copy of the grounds, this important material denoting subjective satisfaction, is conspicuously absent. In the Tamil grounds, all that the Detaining Authority has stated is that the detenu may file a bail application and if he came out on bail, he will indulge in future prejudicial activities. Nowhere the detaining authority has stated that there was an imminent possibility of his being released on bail or there was such a likelihood, which would then allow the detenu to remain at large making it possible for him to indulge himself in future prejudicial activities. So long as that vital link is missing, on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ri-vadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Govt. of Delhi (1994 SCC (Cri) 354 , the detenu is bound to succeed.

Impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required. This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.