A. Ramakrishnan vs State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 31.10.2005, detaining his brother by name Muthu as ''Bootlegger'' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the order dated 17.10.2005, made in Crl.M.P. No.3113 of 2005, in and by which, learned District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur, dismissed the said Petition filed for bail, contended that even before the said court, a statement was made on behalf of the Sponsoring Authority that the accused/detenu is going to be detained as Bootlegger under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982; in such circumstances, the Detaining Authority having relied on the said document, there is no material to show that he had passed the impugned order by considering other materials.

It is stated that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the order dated 17.10.2005. In the light of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we verified the said order, which is available at page No.72 of the booklet. It is seen that based on the instruction of the Sponsoring Authority, the Public Prosecutor appeared in that case, while opposing grant of bail, submitted that steps are being taken to detain the accused/detenu under Act 14 of 1982. A perusal of the grounds of detention does not show that the Detaining Authority, de hors to the order dated 17.10.2005 and the information to the Court, considered other relevant materials before passing the detention order. In the absence of such materials/information reflected in the detention order, we sustain the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that the ultimate order of detention is vitiated.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.