R. SENTHILPERUMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, namely, Maruthu @ Maruthupandi, son of Senthilperumal @ Muthuramalingam, aged about 24 years, against the detention order passed by the second respondent, in H.S. (M) Confdl No. 68/2019 dated 04.11.2019, branding him as "Goonda " as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. N. Pragalathan, learned counsel for the petitioner that though the detention order has been assailed on several grounds, it is liable to be set aside on the ground that there was no proper non-intimation of arrest of the detenu either to his family members or his relatives. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-intimation of arrest would seriously affect the valuable rights of the detenu to make effective representation to the Authorities concerned for revocation of the detention order. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the habeas corpus petition in H.C.P. (MD) No. 1154 of 2020 filed by the co-accused in the first adverse case has been allowed on the same ground by this Court, vide order dated 06.08.2020.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. V. Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the detention order has been passed by the Detaining Authority after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned detention order. Furthermore, the intimation of arrest of the detenu was given through SMS and hence, the rights of the detenu has not been affected in any manner.