BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.10.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Habeas Corpus Petition (Md.No.871 of 2013 Mangaleswari ...Petitioner versus 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector cum the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in Cr.M.P.No.20/F.O./2013, dated 31.07.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's husband Villayutham, Son of Veluthevar, aged 47 years detained in Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
!For Petitioner .Mr.R.Venkatesan ^For Respondents .Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu.
The detenu has been branded as a ".Forest Offender".
as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in Cr.M.P.No.20/F.O./2013, dated 31.07.2013.
2.The dentue came to adveRs.notice in the following cases: S.No.Police Station and Sections of Law Crime No.1.
Mandapam & 3 of 2009 Schedule 1 Part IVC Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 Amendment Act 2009 Sec.9, 39(1)(a),d(3),50, 51.
2.
Ramanathapuram & 6 of Schedule 1 Part IVC Wild Life 2009.
(Protection) Act 1972 Amendment Act 2009 Sec.9, 39(1)(a).d(3),50, 51.
3.
Ramanathapuram & 7 of Schedule I Part IVC Wild Life 2009 (Protection) Act 1972 Amendment Act 2009, Sec.9, 39(1)(a).d(3).50, 51.
4.
Mandapam 37 of 2010 Schedule I Part IVC Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 Amendment Act 2009, Sec.9, 39(1)(a).d(3).50, 51.
The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the Inspector of Police, Thiruppalaikudi Police Station, in Crime No.96 of 2013 under section 5(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9, 39 (1)(a).d(3).50, 51 of Wild Life Act, 1972 and Amendment, 2002.
Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.
3.Besides raising several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly argued that there is non-furnishing of a document relied on by the Detaining Authority, particularly, the bail order in Crl.M.P.No.11374 of 2010 2010, dated 08.10.2010 granted by this court.
Therefore, non furnishing of the document is deprived the petitioner to make an effective representation in Tamil version, which is mandatory requirement under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
4.We have heard Mr.Mailvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above grounds and also perused the records.
5.The wife of the detenu has come before this court, questioning the order of detention order of the Authority, who comes to the conclusion to detain the detenu by stating that:- ".Thiru.Villayutham, Age 47/13, S/o.Velu Thevar, Muthuramalingathevar Nagar, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District, has filed a bail petition in connection with ground case in Cr.No.96/13, u/s.5(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 9, 39[1(a)]., 50, 51 Wild Life Act, 1972 Amendment Wild Life (Protection) Act, 2002 of Thiruppalaikudi Police Station as per Cr.M.P.No.1879/13 in the Court of Session Judge, Ramanathapuram and it is dismissed on 29.07.13.
Further, the accused filed anticipatory bail petitions in the adveRs.cases in Cr.No.6/2009 and 7/2009, u/s Schedule 1 part IV-C Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 Amendment Wild Life (Protection) Act 2002, section 9, 39(1) a, d(3) 50, 51 of Ramanathapuram Wild Life Range, as per Cr.M.P.No.1707/09 and 1708/09 respectively in Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram and Cr.No.37/10, u/s.Schedule 1 Part IV - C Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 Amendment Wild Life (Protection) Act, 2002, section 9, 39(1)a, d(3)50, 51 of Mandapam Wild Life Range as per Crl.O.P.No.11374/10 in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and the anticipatory bails were granted.
If he is not detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, he will indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Further, the recouRs.to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru.Villayutham, Age 47/13, S/o.Velu thevar, Muthuramalingathevar Nagar, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District is a Forest Offender and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under provision 2(ee) of Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.".
6.On scrutinizing the above order, it is clear that the relied on document in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11374 of 2010, the bail order granted by this court in the above said criminal original petition, has been furnished at para 49 and 50 in English, but the Tamil Version of the same has not been furnished to the detenu.
7.It is true that the Detaining authority is empowered to detain any person, which is in conversion of law and habitually committed the offence.
But while doing so, the order of detention has to be communicated along with the relied on documents, if that could be material information, not only in the English Version, but also in the language known to the detenu.
In the instant case, the detenu should understand the order in the language known to him i.e.Tamil version, which has not been furnished by the Detaining Authority.
Therefore, denial of such document in Tamil Version would vitiate the impugned order and accordingly, the same cannot be allowed to stand.
8.The Constitution requires that the grounds must be communicated in a language understood by the person concerned, so that he can make an effective representation.
What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu.
Therefore, the detention order passed against the detenu is vitiated in law.
9.For the above reasons, in our view, non-supply of Tamil Version of the English documents on the facts and in the circumstances, rendered the continued detention of the detenu illegal.
Hence, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Villayutham S/o.Veluthevar, vide Cr.M.P.No.20/F.O/2013, dated 31.07.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
The above named detenu, who is detained in Central Prison, Madurai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
However, it is made clear that the present order shall not give any advantage to the detenu in any of the regular proceedings.
It is open to the prosecution to contest the regular case effectively in accordance with law .
ER To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector cum the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.