MANJULA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT., FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS-600009 AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by one Manjula under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, quashing the order of detention passed by the second respondent and setting at liberty the detenu Mohan, the petitioner's husband.

(2.) THE impugned order of detention had been made by the detaining authority on 16.3.1987 in exercise of the powers conferred by S.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) AT this juncture, learned Public Prosecutor would put forth an argument stating that the detenu was secured at about 3 P.M., and that the detaining authority might have signed the grounds of detention after coming to know that the detenu was already secured. We find at the foot of the order of detention now available in the file an endorsement by the officer who served a copy of the order on the detenu on 16.3.1987 after lodging the detenu in prison. That endorsement reads that a copy of the grounds of detention was served on the detenu only at 6:30 P.M. Therefore, if at all the detaining authority was informed of the detention of the detenu in pursuance of the order of detention, it was only after 6:30 P.M. and not before. As we have pointed out earlier, a careful examination of the entire grounds of detention and the foot -note made therein would show that the foot -note should have been written along with the grounds of detention, and not separately. Hence, the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the detaining authority might have signed the grounds of detention after coming to know of the detention of the detenu in prison is beyond one's comprehension, and it cannot be accepted in the absence of any other material indicating that the detaining authority had signed the grounds of detention only after being aware of the fact that the detenu had been lodged in prison. As we have now come to the conclusion that the foot -note " " should have been typed and cyclostyled even on 16.3.1987, probably simultaneously with the detention order, we have no other go except to hold that the detaining authority was sot quite sure as to whether the detenu was inside the Prison or not and that he has mechanically signed the same.