State of Tamil Nadu & Anr Vs. Balasubramaniam
 Insc 91 (20
Shah & S.N. Variava. S. N. Variava, J.
Appeal is against an Order dated 10th March, 2000.
this Order a detention Order dated 7th April, 1999 has been quashed on the ground that
in the Affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority it has been mentioned that the Detenu
was involved in six cases and that in the detention Order it has been stated
that the Detenu was involved in four occurrences in four different cases. It is
held that the Detenu had been given copies of documents in respect of one case
only even though the Detaining Authority was bound to give copies in all the
six cases. It is held that thus the Detenu had been denied an effective
opportunity to defend himself. On this ground the detention Order was set
correct that the Detaining Authority has to apply its mind before issuing a
Detention Order. However, it is equally important that the Court, hearing a
Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, also
applies its mind before it quashes a Detention Order.
in the Affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority reliance has been placed on
six cases. However, the Detaining Authority has not placed reliance on six
cases. This itself shows that the Detaining Authority had applied its mind and
not gone just by what was stated by the Sponsoring Authority.
In Para 2 of the impugned Order it is stated as follows:
In sub-para 2 of paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention it is stated as
follows: "He has committed the above mentioned offences in Sobanapuram, Koppampatti,
Manamalai, Anaikkal which are rich in sandalwood and other species and wild
life." The detenu is stated to have been involved in four occurrence in
four different cases. ." From the statement extracted above it has been
concluded that there were four occurrences in four different places.
the same Detention Order also sets out as follows:
16-3-99 on a reliable information, the
Forest Range Officer, Perambalur and incharge of Thuraiyur Range, formed a special party led by him,
proceeded at about 5 PM to conduct forest offences raid at Sobanapuram
Section, Koppampatti beat, Manmalai Reserve Forest Jee road." Thus it is
clear that Sobanapuram is a Section, Koppampatti is a beat, Manmalai is a
reserve forest and Anaikkal is a name of the road. A careful reading shows the
Detention Order does not refer to four occurrences in four different places,
but is only mentioning that an offence had taken place in Sobanapuram section, Koppampatti
beat, Manamalai forest and at Anaikkal road. Had the High Court applied its
mind properly, it would have realised that there were no four occurrences in
four different places.
the Detenu has been given copy of the documents in the adverse case relied
view, there has been total non-application of mind on the part of the High
Court. The impugned Order of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is
hereby set aside.
the Detention Order was of 1999. The same had been quashed by the High Court in
March 2000. The period of detention is over. In our view, this is not a case
where the Detenu should be made to surrender to undergo the remaining period of
Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. There will be no Order as to costs.