@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Sathyanaryanan, J.@mdashThe Petitioner is the detent and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 17.04.2010, passed by the
second Respondent under which, the detenu has been branded as a ""Goonda"" and detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2. As per the grounds of detention dated 17.04.2010, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:
1. Coimbatore R.S. Puram Police Station Crime No. 590/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The offence
said to have taken place during night hours on 07.06.2006.
2. Coimbatore Kattur Police Station Crime No. 2006/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The offence
said to have taken place between 02.09.2006 and 04.09.2006.
3. Coimbatore Kattur Police Station Crime No. 1866/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 511 of IPC. The
offence said to have taken place during night hours on 11.08.2006.
4. Coimbatore Kattur Police Station Crime No. 1895/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 511 of IPC. The
offence said to have taken place on 17.08.2006.
5. Coimbatore R.S. Puram Police Station Crime No. 870/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457, 380 of IPC. The offence
said to have taken place during night hours on 19.08.2006.
6. Coimbatore R.S. Puram Police Station Crime No. 892/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The offence
said to have taken place on 26.08.2006.
7. Coimbatore R.S. Puram Police Station Crime No. 908/2006, for the commission of the offence u/s 380 IPC. The offence said to have taken
place during night on 31.08.2006.
8. Coimbatore R.S. Puram Police Station Crime No. 913/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457 and 511 of IPC. The
offence said to have taken place during night on 02.09.2006.
9. Coimbatore R.S. Puram Police Station Crime No. 922/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The
offence said to have taken place during night on 08.09.2006.
10. Coimbatore R.S. Puram Police Station Crime No. 1123/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The
offence said to have taken place on 30.10.2006 night.
11. Coimbatore R.S. Puram Police Station Crime No. 1124/2006, for the commission of the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The
offence said to have taken place during night hours on 31.10.2006.
12. Erode Town Police Station Crime No. 781/2009, for the commission of the offence u/s 380 of IPC. The offence said to have taken place on
27.04.2009.
13. Dharapuram Police Station Crime No. 879/2009, for the commission of the offence u/s 379 IPC. The offence said to have taken place on
05.10.2009.
14. Dharapuram Police Station Crime No. 1006/2009, for the commission of the offence u/s 397 IPC. The offence said to have taken place on
13.11.2009.
3. It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu was also involved in the alleged commission of the offences, which said to have
taken place on 23.03.2010 at 10.00 hours, which led to the registration of the case in Crime No. 160/2010 on the file of Alangiam Police Station
for the alleged commission of an offence u/s 392 IPC. The Petitioner was arrested on 23.03.2010 and was remanded to judicial custody till
06.04.2010 by the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram and subsequently the remand was extended upto 20.04.2010. As the activities of the detenu
are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, on taking into consideration the materials placed by the sponsoring authority, the Detaining
Authority has clamped the order of detention.
4. Though several grounds were urged on behalf of the Petitioner/detenu in the affidavit filed in support of the present Habeas Corpus Petition, the
learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/detenu would submit that in respect of the order of detention was dated 17.04.2010, an errata was
issued by the Detaining Authority on 26.04.2010 and it was served on the detenu on 29.04.2010. In paragraph No. 6 of the grounds of detention,
it has been stated that the detention order shall not remain in force for more than 12 days after making thereof unless in the meantime and it has
been approved by the State Government and the detenu was also informed that he has a right to make a representation against the detention order
to the Detaining Authority before the approval by the Government. Thus the order remain in force till 29.04.2010 for a period of 12 days and the
detenu is at liberty to make a representation against the order of detention before on 29.04.2010. Since the errata dated 26.04.2010 came to be
served on the detenu only on 29.04.2010 on the expiry of the 12th day from the date of order of detention, the detenu has been deprived of a
valuable right of submitting his representation for revocation of the order of detention and hence the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
would submit that on the sole ground, the order of detention is vitiated and liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that, since an inadvertent error had crept in the
grounds of detention dated 17.04.2010, an errata was issued on 26.04.2010 and it was served on the detenu on 29.04.2010 and nothing
prevented the detenu from submitting a representation on 29.04.2010 itself and therefore the impugned order of detention is liable to be confirmed
and the Habeas Corpus Petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court, after taking into consideration the rival submissions made on either side and after perusing the materials available on records, is of
the view that the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner merits acceptance. The order of detention came to be
passed on 17.04.2010 and the grounds of detention was also served on the detenu on 17.04.2010. Subsequently, an error crept in the grounds of
detention was noted and an errata was issued on 26.04.2010 by the Detaining Authority and the same was served on the detenu on 29.04.2010.
7. In paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, it has been indicated that the order of detention shall not remain in force for more than 12 days and
the detenu was called upon to submit his representation before expiry of the said period of 12 days from the date of detention order. The period of
12 days expired on 29.04.2010 and the errata dated 26.04.2010 itself was served on the detenu on 29.04.2010 i.e. on the expiry of the 12th day.
Since the period of 12 days at the time of serving errata, expired on 29.04.2010, the detenu has been deprived of his valuable opportunity of
submitting his representation for revocation of the detention order.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said lapse on the part of the Detaining Authority, would definitely vitiate the order of detention and
same is liable to be quashed.
9. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the second Respondent in Cr.M.P. No.
01/Goonda/2010, dated 17.04.2010, is quashed. The detenu Muthu alias Jeyakumar, son of Kunjachan alias Vijayan, is ordered to be set at
liberty forthwith unless his detention/custody is required in connection with any other case or proceedings.
