Setting aside an order of detention under the Goondas Act against a person, the Madras High Court said that it was at a loss to understand the necessity for his detention in the Borstal School, Pudukottai.
A Division Bench, comprising Justices C. Nagappan and P.R. Shivakumar, passed the order while allowing a Habeas Corpus petition by Chithirakumar seeking to quash an order of the District Collector, Thanjavur, detaining him under the Goondas Act.
He prayed for a direction that he be produced before the court and set at liberty.
The main submission of the petitioner's counsel, N. Duraisamy, was that the detaining authority had mentioned the detenu's age as 21 in 2010 whereas in a remand report in an adverse case registered by the Kabisthalam police station, it was mentioned as 15 in 2009. The detaining authority ought to have called for a clarification from the sponsoring authority, but it failed to do so.
Counsel also contended that the detenu was an undertrial prisoner in all the adverse cases and the ground case. It was not known according to which order he was remanded to the Borstal School.
The Bench said that in the detention order and the grounds of detention the detaining authority had observed that Chithirakumar was aged 21 in 2010. In a copy of the remand report in the case registered by the Kabisthalam police station, the investigation officer had noted the age as 15 in 2009.
The time gap between the registration of this case and the ground case was only one year.
Within that time, Chithirakumar could not have attained the age of 21. In any event, the detaining authority had failed to seek clarification in this regard. The detention order was vitiated.
None of the initial remand orders in the adverse cases and in the ground case were found in the booklet. In the remand extension orders, there was no reference to Borstal School.
The Bench observed: “We are also at a loss to understand as to the necessity to clamp an order of detention directing the person to be detained in a Borstal School.” It ordered that Chithirakumar be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in any other case.
