N. Selvi vs The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, The Commissioner of Police and The Inspector of Police

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, the wife of the detenu, by name, Nagooran @ Nagoor Meeran, who was detained as a ""Goonda"" under

the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,

Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) by the impugned order, dated 10.5.2005, challenges the same in this

petition.

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

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the only contention that the representation of the petitioner, dated 13.5.2 005 was

not properly considered, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention.

As against the said contention, the learned Government Advocate brought to our notice that the said representation was addressed to the

Government and the same was forwarded to the detaining authority, since the said representation was made before approval by the Government.

The reply of the detaining authority, dated 20.5.2005 shows that the grievance expressed by the petitioner has been duly considered, for example,

in the representation it is stated that the detention order was passed at the instance of one local rowdy and also at the instance of a prominent

politician. This was specifically referred to and considered by the detaining authority. Likewise, the other grievance of the petitioner is that at the

time of arrest, the detenu was beaten by the police persons in the police station. In the reply, the detaining authority specifically denied the said

allegation. In fact when the detenu was produced before the learned Magistrate for remand, the learned Magistrate after recording that no

complaint against the police, remanded him till 13.5.2005.

In such circumstances, we are satisfied that the detaining authority considered all the grievance expressed in the representation, dated

13.5.2005. We do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, this Habeas Corpus

Petition fails and the same is dismissed.