T CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of Nagarajan detained in Central Prison, Salem under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982. The second respondent, by order dated 8/8/1990 has detained the said Nagarajan characterizing him as a goonda for the reasons stated in the detention order. Though as many as 15 grounds are taken in the affidavit filed in support of the petition challenging the detention, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance only on ground No. 12 in support of his argument before us. Ground No. 12 reads as follows: Copies of several facts and materials taken into consideration by the detaining authority for subjective satisfaction were not furnished to the detune. In support of this argument, he places reliance on a passage in the counter-affidavit of the second respondent which reads as follows:it is submitted that the sponsoring authority placed before this respondent necessary documents relating to the above crime. This respondent went through the affidavit and documents in support of the affidavit carefully and thoroughly and was satisfied that unless the detune Mr. Nagarajan is detained under the said Act, he will continue to act in a manner prejudicial to the main tenance of public order.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a copy of the affidavit which was relied on by the detaining authority mentioned in the counter-affidavit has not been given to the detune to effectively answer the charges. That vitiates the detention order. In support of that, he placed reliance on the order passed in W. P. No. 1139 of 1988 dated 19/7/1988, wherein, K. M. Natarajan, J. , speaking for the Bench, after referring to a Supreme Court judgment reported in Debu Mehta v. State of West Bengal has observed as follows:"in view of the above decision we are of the view that failure to furnish copies of the affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police before the 2nd respondent, which affidavit was relied upon by the Detaining Authority, for the purpose of finding out whether the detune was on bail or not, would certainly violate the mandatory provision of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and on this ground the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Contending contra, the learned Public Prosecutor states that in the affidavit, no material allegations were made against the detune and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the detune in not furnishing copies of the same. We are not going into that:in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent as extracted above, he has unequivocally stated that he has relied upon the affidavit and other documents for passing the detention order. The facts are identical with the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, viz. , W. P. No. 1139 of 1988. Accordingly, applying the ratio of the Division Bench mentioned above, we held that the detention order is vitiated for non furnishing copies of the relevant documents to the detune. The detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the detune forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other matter.