The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside the detention order passed against a youth from Madurai under the Goondas Act after the detaining authority in the detention order had not informed him about the right of the detenu to make a representation before the detaining authority within 12 days questioning the detention order.

A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Vijayakumar observed that Article 22 (5) of the Constitution states that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as possible, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order had been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.

The detaining authority in the detention order had not informed about the right of the detenu to make a representation before the detaining authority within 12 days which resulted in infraction of Article 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, the detention order was liable to be quashed, the court observed.

The court was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Palanisamy of Madurai who had challenged the detention order passed against his son Seeman. The court directed the detenu be released forthwith unless his detention was required in any other case.

The court expressed concern over the detention order being passed by the detaining authority overlooking an established point of law and observed that this was the fourth such case in Madurai. Necessary inquiry should be made in the office of Madurai District Collector whether the omission was deliberately caused by any staff in the Collectorate.

Inquiry should be made as to who actually prepared or typed the detention order under instructions of the District Collector and whether the statement giving right to make a representation had been deliberately omitted in the detention order. The District Collector should have been vigilant before putting signature, since a detention order takes away the liberty of a person without trial, the court observed.

The court sought an affidavit enclosing explanation from the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department and posted the matter on October 22.