RATHA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detenu viz., Ratha himself has challenged the detention order passed against him in C.P.O./T.C/I.S/D.O. No.9 of 2005 dated 4.3.2005 by the second respondent in this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appointed by the State Legal Aid Authority appearing on behalf of the detenu has raised so many grounds and mainly raised a ground stating that the representation, prepared by him on behalf of the detenu was sent to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Trichy, wherein the detenu is detained, for the purpose of getting the signature of the detenu in the representation and submitting the same to the Government and returning the signed affidavit to him for the purpose of filing writ petition, has been simply returned by the Superintendent of the Central Prison without assigning any reason. He further, with emphasis, contended that because of such action of the Superintendent, Central Prison, necessary representation could not be submitted to the Government and thereby opportunity has been denied to the detenu to putforth his contentions before the Government, which consequently, vitiates the very detention order itself.

(3.) HOWEVER, such submission of the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) cannot be accepted as a reasonable one. Further, the Legal Aid counsel appearing for the petitioner also brought to our notice the following rulings:- i) Unreported order in H.C.P.No.2164 of 2002 dated 10.4.2003 (RAJI v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS) (Division Bench of this court); ii) MOHAMED BADUSHA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Division Bench of this court) (1997(II) CTC 756); iii) P.N.A. HYDER ALI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Division Bench of this court) (1997 (III) CTC 486); and iv) B.ALAMELU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS (Full Bench of the Supreme Court) (1994(3) CRIMES 828); wherein in more or less similar circumstance, it has been held that when there is record to show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Superintendent, Central Prison, it should have been forwarded to the Government and if not forwarded, the detention order against the detenu cannot be construed as a valid one as if there is excuse on the part of the Government by saying that no representation was received. Whatever it may be, we are of the view that in all fairness, that too when liberty of an individual is in question on the strength of the detention order under Act 14/1982, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy ought to have sent the representation to the Government for consideration at the earliest point of time. Therefore, the detention order against the petitioner gets vitiated on this ground.