G KARUPPIAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenus in both the cases are the coaccused in the ground case. Both the detenus have been detained as TGoonda as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, pursuant to the order of detention dated 20-4-1999. passed by the 2nd respondent herein. Both the detenus had involved in two adverse cases. So far as the ground case is concerned on 29-3-1999, at about 7-45 p.m. the detenus went to the petty shop of one Soundarapandian at Taluk Office Road Tiruchuli and took the soda and cool drink bottles from the shop and threw them away in the road. The bottles burst with a bang and splinters spread in all the directions. Passengers in the bus stop and the general public with panic and fear ran in all directions. Traffic on the road came to a standstill. Shopkeepers closed their shutters. The routine life was disturbed. The Head Constable Mr. Paul Kannan with his police party came and attempted to catch hold of the detenus. The detenus threatened the police with aruvals. The Police Constable Mr. Muthusamy, who, attempted to catch Karuppusamy, the detenu in H.C.P. No. 1199/99, the detenu attempted to cut the said Constable Mr. Muthiah, who sustained injury on his left fore hand. Thereafter, the detenu Karuppusamy was apprehended and the aruval was recovered from him and was taken to police station along with the other detenu Solayappan, who also caused a cut injury on another constable Mr. Ramalingam. A case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 427, 332 and 307 on P.C. and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police, Trichy, and the other formalities have been completed. Both the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate. Aruppukottai on 29-3-1999 and remanded to custody. Considering the conduct of the detenus the Sponsoring Authority has sent the proposal to the Detaining Authority for their preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14/82. The Detaining Authority after satisfying himself with regard to the need for such detention has passed the impugned order of detention.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order of detention was passed on 20-4-1999 and the same was served on the detenus on 21-4-1999. The family members of the detenus have not been intimated about the order of detention and the fact of the detenus being taken into custody and about the place of detention pursuant to the order of detention.

(3.) The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit, in paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated as follows: MJ humbly submit that the allegation levelled against this respondent, that the relatives of the detenu were not informed in writing about the passing of the order of detention is false. I submit that the detention order was passed on 20-4-1999 and the same was served on the detenu on 21-4-1999 by the Jailor, Central Prison. Madurai. The mother of the detenu with whom the detenu was residing at Meenakshipuram village. On 20-4-1999, when the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruchuli approached her to serve the detention order, after the Sub-Inspector read over the detention order to her, she refused to receive the same. Hence, in the presence of Village Administrative Officer and independent witness Thiru, Sivapackiam, he affixed the detention order on the front of the house. Thus, the service of the detention order is valid in law and there is no infirmity. Even though in the affidavit filed by the petitioners on behalf of the detenus, it is stated that the family members have not been informed about the order of detention, now, after perusal of the counter affidavit filed, by the 2nd respondent, learned Counsel for the petitioners has advanced an argument that as per the averments made in the counter affidavit, the order of detention had been sought to be served on the family members i.e. the mother of The detenu in HCP. No. 1199/99 and the wife of the detenu in HCP. No. 1200/99. The family members of the detenus need not be served with a copy of the order of detention and they have to be furnished with the intimation with regard to passing of the order of detention and the place of detention of the detenus. Since there is no averment made in the counter affidavit that the Detaining Authority has made any attempt to serve the intimation about the order of detention on the family members, it has to be taken that the family members were not served with any intimation about the order of detention, and on this ground, the Habeas Corpus Petitions have to be allowed.