M. Rani vs The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police

P. Sathasivam, J.—Mother of the detenu by name Nataraj, 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 20.07.200 5, challenges the same in this Petition.

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

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that in view of lot of discrepancies in the mahazar and other documents, the impugned

order passed by the Detaining Authority cannot be sustained.

It is our duty to point out that, first of all, there is no specific complaint or reference by the counsel regarding violation of any of the procedure to

be followed by the Detaining Authority. Though the counsel has argued that cases have been foisted against the detenu, we are of the view that

those things have to be considered by the concerned court, where the cases are pending. As pointed out by the learned Government Advocate,

amongst the adverse cases, period of remand was set off in the first adverse cases, and in respect of other adverse cases, some are pending trial

and others pending investigation by the Officer concerned. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the general grievance expressed by the

petitioner cannot be gone into by this Court.

Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.