C SHANMUGAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three habeas corpus petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the petitioner in each one of these petitions, is stated to be involved in the same ground crime. Preventive orders under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) 1988 were separately passed against each one of these petitioners on 5.4.1994 by the second respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of the afforestated Act. With a view to preventing each one of these petitioners from engaging themselves in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs. In all these habeas corpus petitions, the prayer is for production of the respective petitioners before this Court to beset at liberty, after quashing the impugned orders.

(2.) We do not intend narrating the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned orders of detention, for the grounds urged in each one of these petitions can be disposed of, even without reference to facts in extenso. If need be necessary facts can always be called out from the grounds of detention. However, we are constrained to state, that the grounds to disclose commission of very grave offences by the petitioners. In spite of such gravity, the detaining authority or the other authorities in charge of processing of preventive orders appear to have taken the work lightly and mechanically, without application of mind, even to the minimum possible extent. We will be very soon, spelling out the reasons, for our afforestated observation. While H.C.P. No. 900/94 may relate to a different ground of challenge, the other two habeas corpus petitions contain a solitary and similar ground of challenge. Therefore, it will be necessary to consider the inherent merits of H.C.P. No. 900/94 separately, while clubbing H.C.P. Nos. 901 and 902/94 together for rendering our verdict.

(3.) Mr. S. Samuel Rajapandian, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in RC.P. No, 900/94, submitted that there is a grave lacuna in communication of the impugned order of detention and the grounds of detention on the detenu. He referred to the order of detention in Tamil, served on the detenu on 11.4.1994 at 02-30 hours (time). In that order, the detaining authority has stated in the end of the order that the detenu was a resident of Madhavaram, Madras-Si. He was at that point of time a remand prisoner in Central Prison, Madras. Petitioners Counsel then made a deference to the grounds of detention, which indicate, that the petitioner had already been released on bail, in pursuance of an order passed by this Court and was enjoying liberty of the relevant time, when the impugned order was served on him. The contention was that the detaining authority was not even aware, if the detenu was on bail or was still in remand as an under-trial prisoner in Central Prison, Madras, at the relevant time.