S ALAGARSAMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to set one Soori alias Udayasooriyan, who has been detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, at liberty.

(2.) By an order dated 2-12-1983, the Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai, in exercise of her powers under S.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 directed that the said Soori alias Udayasooriayan be detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison at Madurai on the ground that it was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The grounds of detention were served on 13-12-1983 (Sic). Under Sub-s.(3) of S.3, the Government approved the detention order in G.O.Ms. No.1066 P and E. (XII) dated 9-12-1983. The detenu sent his written representation dated 24-12-1983 to the Government with copies to the District Collector, Madurai as also the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The Government received the written representation through the Jail Superintendent on 30-12-1983. The Collector of Madurai received the representation on 28-12-1983. The Collector of Madurai in her turn seems to have forwarded the representation to the Superintendent of Police, Madurai South on 31-12-1983 for his report. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the report of the Superintendent was received by her on 9-1-1984 along with the reports of the Superintendent of Police dated 8-1-1984 and that of the Inspector of Police dated 7-1-1984. The second respondent, Collector, in her counter affidavit further states that she translated the representation of the detenu which was in English into Tamil and sent it to the Government along with her report and the reports of the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police on 10-1-1984. The first respondent Government in their affidavit state that the representation of the detenu dated 24-12-1983 received on 30-12-1983 was sent to the Advisory Board on 6-1-1984 as the Advisory Board had fixed 12-1-1984 for reviewing the case of the detenu. It may be mentioned that the report of the second respondent Collector is in Tamil. This report of the Collector is stated to have been received on 12-1-1984. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent -

(3.) In Dr. Rahamatullah v. State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 2069 the order of detention under the National Security Act was made on April 30, 1981. The detenu made his written representation against the detention on May 31, 1981. The representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board and the report of the Advisory Board was received on 29-6-1981. After the receipt of the Advisory Board's opinion the representation was rejected on 1-7-1981. With reference to the Constitutional obligation of an authority making an order of preventive detention to communicate the grounds of detention and affording him an earliest opportunity of making representation against the order as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court observed as follows :