Panneer Selvam vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is detained as a ""Goonda"" as contemplated 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, 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 27.01.2006, challenges the same in this petition.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to paragraph No. 5 of the grounds of detention and the amendment dated

28.02.2006 to the detention order dated 27.01.2006, contended that first of all, the detaining authority has no power to pass such an order after

approval by the Government and secondly, the said order has deprived the detenu in making effective representation.

On going through the averments made in paragraph No. 5 of the grounds of detention dated 27.01.2006 and the proceedings of the detaining

authority dated 28.02.2006 amending the word from the said paragraph No. 5, we are unable to accept both the contentions for the following

reasons.

It is not in dispute that the detention order was passed by the detaining authority on 27.01.2006. It is brought to our notice that the said order

was approved by the Government on 07.02.2006 that is, within the prescribed period. However, the detaining authority after noting that he has not

specifically mentioned about the urgency or the detenu being coming out on bail by orders of the Court in paragraph No. 5, issued proceedings

dated 28.02.2006, wherein it is stated ""In the said grounds on which the detention order for the words in para 5 in line Nos.4 and 7 ""Likelihood

the words ""Very Likely"" shall be substituted.

First of all, we are of the view that the nomenclature ""likelihood"", ""from likelihood"", ""real possibility"", ""very likely"" or ""most likely"" are not

relevant. In fact, in 2005 (4) CTC 497 [K. Thirupathi v. District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruchirpalli and Anr.], a full Bench of this

Court (Madurai Bench) has held:

In view of the above, we hold that strict insistence of the usage of the word ""imminent"" is not necessary and the other convincing expressions

like ""real possibility"", ""very likely"" or ""most likely"" can be used by the detaining authority to reflect its satisfaction with regard to immediate release

of the detenu on bail. We answer the Reference accordingly.

In such circumstances, we are of the view that the amendment issued by the detaining authority is unnecessary. The Courts have taken a view

that the detaining authority, before proceeding to detain any person under Act 14 has to satisfy that, on the date of passing of the order, the detenu

was under Judicial custody by orders of the Court and he is likely to come out by filing bail application and on the orders of the Court. The

detaining authority has to further take note of the fact that, if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which would be prejudicial to

the maintenance of public peace and public order. After arriving at such a conclusion, it must have called for the required details. It is not in dispute

that the detaining authority was not possessed of the required details. In such circumstances and in view of the clarification of the Full Bench of this

Court (Madurai Bench), we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Apart from the above conclusion, though it is stated that the amendment has infringed the right of the detenu in making effective representation,

no cause is shown to us by the detenu how this amendment has affected his right or interest in making a representation to the authority concerned.

In such circumstances, in the absence of prejudice at the instance of the detenu, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned

Counsel for the petitioner. Except the above said contention, no other ground is urged disputing the detention order. Consequently, this petition

fails and the same is dismissed.