A NATARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother in law of the detenu Palani, praying for a direction to call for records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent dated 14.8.2003 in Order No. C3.D.O.No.80 of 2003 whereby the said authority has detained the detenu branding him as a 'bootlegger' under preventive detention invoking the provisions of Act 14/1982 on ground that he is a threat to the maintenance of public order, and to direct the respondents to produce the said detenu now detained in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and to set him at liberty. (Order of the Court was made by V.KANAGARAJ,J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother in law of the detenu Palani, praying for a direction to call for records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent dated 14.8.2003 in Order No. C3.D.O.No.80 of 2003 whereby the said authority has detained the detenu branding him as a 'bootlegger' under preventive detention invoking the provisions of Act 14/1982 on ground that he is a threat to the maintenance of public order, and to direct the respondents to produce the said detenu now detained in Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

(2.) The detenion order passed by the detaining authority the 2nd respondent herein, the District Magistrate and District collector Vellore District, Vellore, would show that the detenu is a " Bootlegger" and he has already been involved in ten other cases shown as adverse cases as that of the ground case and in all the adverse cases registered against him he got convicted and therefore, concluding that his presence is a threat to maintenance of the public order, thus invoking the provisions of Act 14 of 1982 and as per his order dated 14.8.2003 , the detenu has been detained under preventive detention, testifying the validity of which the petitioner has come forward to file the above Habeas Corpus Petition.

(3.) Today when the above matter was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side, the learned counsel for the petitioner would lay emphasis on the legal point that earlier the Advisory Board was to meet on 18.9.2003 and the same got postponed and since the detenu was to be brought from Vellore to Chennai inspite of having made arrangements, he was not able to be produced before the Board because of postponing of the Board meeting to 23.9.2003 and the same had been passed only on 20.9.2003 and the subsequent dates 21.9.2003 and 22.9.2003 being public holidays, no proper intimation was able to be made to the detenu regarding the Board meeting, as a result of which the detenu was not in a position to seek assistance of his friend or relative and this is a violation of the procedure established by law and his valuable right of seeking assistance of his friend or relative has been affected and hence at this score itself would seek the detention order set aside and the detenu set at liberty.