AKILANDESWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the mother of the detenu by name Kumar @ Kumaravel, S/o Muruganantham, who has been branded as a 'Goonda' and detained under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned order of detention dated 12.10.2007 passed by the second respondent, which is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) THE detention order is questioned on the sole ground that neither the family members nor the relatives or known persons of the detenu were informed of the arrest. In the absence of such intimation, the detention order is vitiated.

(3.) THOUGH the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has made an attempt to justify by stating that the family members were intimated through telegram, he has not placed any material to satisfy this Court as to whether any telegram was sent and the same was acknowledged either by the family members or relatives of the detenu. A right of intimation to the relatives or family members of the detenu encompasses itself the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make a representation to the detaining authority or the State Government, as the case may be. In the event the arrest is not intimated, the detenu would not be in a position to make any such representation and in that context, failure on the part of the detaining authority would amount to deprivation of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. On the facts of this case, a specific averment has been made that the intimation was not given. We also find that the said averment has not been controverter in the counter affidavit. THOUGH the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the family members of the detenu were informed of the arrest through telegram, there are no materials placed before us to substantiate the said contention. Further, the copy of the telegram has also not been furnished to the detenu. In the absence of the same, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the family members or the relatives of the detenu were informed of the arrest. Under these circumstances, the detention order is vitiated.