@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V.M. Velumani, J.@mdashPetitioner, son of the detenue, who has been detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), has come forward with the present petition to quash the detaining order dated 09.03.2014 passed by the second respondent, in P.D. No. 05/2014, detaining his mother as "Bootlegger" and set her at liberty. On being satisfied that the detenue is a Bootlegger, an order of detention dated 09.03.2014, was passed by the second respondent. Detention order was served on 10.03.2014. Detenue was arrested on 23.02.2014 in the ground case. The detenu was remanded into custody on the same day in Crime No. 144 of 2014, registered by Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thanjavur Unit, Incharge, Pattukottai. The bail application moved in the ground case was dismissed on 04.03.2014, in Crl. M.P. No. 1912 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, in Cr. No. 144 of 2014. After dismissal of the bail application, the petitioner has come out with the present petition to quash the detention order, which declared his mother as "Bootlegger".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the detention order has been passed mechanically based on the report given by the Inspector of Police, the sponsoring authority, the detention order has been passed without subjective satisfaction; entire copy of charge sheet was not placed before the detaining authority and the same was not furnished to the detenue; some of the documents were not readable and that the second respondent has failed to supply clean and readable copies and therefore, the detenue was not able to make effective representation; contents of translated copies of the documents and the grounds of detention are not in conformity with original documents; the detaining authority has failed to inform the detention order to the family members, as per Section 8 of the Act; the detaining authority has failed to furnish documents with regard to the ground case and similar case, by which, Articles 22(3) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India have been violated; representation dated 10.04.2014 to the first respondent was not disposed till date; the bail application filed by the detenue was dismissed and no bail application is pending as on date.
3. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit denying all the averments made by the petitioner. According to the second respondent, only after arriving at the subjective satisfaction, detention order was passed. The petitioner, son of the detenue was informed about the detention order and that he refused to receive the intimation. Therefore, on 11.03.2014, the order of detention was affixed on the door of the house of the detenue itself.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record and the Judgments relied on by the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail application filed by the detenue was dismissed on 04.03.2014 and no other bail application was pending. Therefore, there was no possibility of the detenue coming out from jail and that she cannot indulge any activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. He also reiterated all the averments made in the affidavit.
6. Per contra, Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that only after subjective satisfaction the detention order was passed. The entire procedure was followed in letter and spirit and he prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.
7. Though several points have been raised, from the records it is seen that the detention order was passed on 09.03.2014. The detention order was served on the detenue on 10.03.2014 through the Superintendent (Special Cell for Women), Tiruchirappalli. But the documents relied on by the detaining authority were not served on the detenue, on the same day. From the records, it is seen that the documents relied on by the detaining authority were served by the Superintendent (Special Cell for Women), Tiruchirappalli, only on 15.03.2014 and subsequently, they were served on the detenue. As per Section 8(1) of the Act 14 of 1982, the grounds of detention must be furnished to the detenue as soon as possible, but not later than five days from the date of detention. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that Section 8(1) of the Act does not refer to supply of copies of documents along with grounds of detention, we are not inclined to accept the said contention.
8. Whether copies of documents relied on by the detaining authority must also be furnished to the detenue within five days as per Section 8(1) of the Act was considered by this Court on an earlier occasion in the Judgment reported in 2011 (1) MWN (Crl.) 599 (DB) [Mageswari v. The Government of Tamil Nadu], wherein, this Court has clearly held as follows:--
"Therefore, we are of the view that the supply of copies of materials relied on along with the grounds of detention is also the requirement of the said provisions to enable the detenu to make an effective representation at the earliest point of time."
9. This Court in the Judgment reported in 2012 (2) LW (Crl.) 679 [P. Sivakami v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Others], has considered, how to compute the period of five days as provided under Section 8(1) of the Act, considering the earlier Judgment of the Apex Court reported in
10. In the present case, the date of detention order has been passed on 09.03.2014. Grounds of detention order was served on the detenue on 10.03.2014. The Booklet containing copies of documents was served on 15.03.2014 through the Superintendent of Special Cell for Womens, Tiruchirappalli.
11. Applying the principles laid down in the Judgment reported in 2012 (2) LW (Crl.) 679 cited supra, the detaining authority has not served the material documents on the detenue, within five days, as contemplated under Section 8(1) of the Act. It is clear violation of mandatory provision.
12. In the case reported in
"The consistent judicial view of the Hon''ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court is that there cannot be any violation of such statutory provisions in the matter of curtailing a person''s liberty and the procedural safeguards incorporated in section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982".
13. Therefore, we are of the view that the detaining authority has violated the mandatory provision of Section 8(1) of the Act and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the impugned detention order of the second respondent, dated 09.03.2014, in P.D. No. 05/2014, detaining the detenue, viz., Valarmathi, wife of Annadurai, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.
