Mani vs The Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise Dept. and The Commissioner of Police

P. 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 30.06.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the foremost, submitted that inasmuch as the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind in respect of the bail petition filed by a co-accused, which was posted to 30.06.2005, and, without getting further report, has passed the impugned order of detention on the same day, ie., on 30.06.2005, the said order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had moved any bail Application in respect of Crime No. 403 of 2005 on the file of Selaiyur Police Station. Admittedly, the bail Application, which was posted to 30.06.2005, relates to another accused. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out, there is no need on the part of the Detaining Authority to consider or ascertain the stage of the bail Application filed by a co-accused. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.

By drawing our attention to paragraph No. 3 of the grounds of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the Detaining Authority has referred to the fact that one Jagan was recently released from detention under Goondas Act, in the absence of details or order pertaining to the same, it cannot be presumed that the Detaining Authority has considered all the relevant details before passing the impugned order.

Here again, as rightly pointed out, page No. 8 of the Booklet supplied to the detenu contains reference to the above fact, namely, release of the said Jagan, who was detained under Act 14 of 1982. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the Detaining Authority did not possess such information or materials while passing the detention order.

Even according to the counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is no delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu by the Government.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that certain documents, viz., documents at page Nos. 7 to 9 and 65 of the Booklet, supplied to the detenu are not legible and readable, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that, on direction by the Government, readable copies of those documents have been sent to the detenu and receipt of the same was acknowledged by the detenu on 10.08.2005. In the light of the same, we do not find any merit in this contention also.

We find no valid ground for interference. Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.