AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 158 wordsP. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is detained as ''Goonda'' 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) by the impugned detention order dated 09.09.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made the only submission that no one in the family of the detenu has been intimated regarding the detention order passed against the detenu. Learned Government Advocate has produced the File, which shows that the same was intimated to detenu''s wife by name Lakshmi on 10.09.20 05 and the intimation was acknowledged by her in the presence of two witnesses. Hence, the submission made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted.
Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.