Sekar @ Sekkili vs Government of Tamil Nadu

M. Chockalingam, J.—This Writ Application challenges the order of the second respondent made in Cr.M.P. No. 14/2008 dated 28.4.2008 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Goonda".

The Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.

Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases and in one ground case in Crime No. 191/2008 u/s 397 IPC registered by velayuthamPalayam Police Station for the incident that took place on 8.4.2008 as stated in the order of detention, after scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that he should be detained as a "Goonda" and accordingly, made the order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner in his sincere attempt of assailing the order of detention brought to the notice of the Court that in the instant ground case i.e. Crime No. 191/2008, the occurrence had taken place on 8.4.2008 and he was arrested on the very same day and no bail application was filed at all. But, the detaining authority has stated in its order that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Such an observation was made without any material or basis whatsoever.

Apart from that, the learned Counsel brought to the notice of the Court that when the copy of the materials were supplied to the detenu no Tamil translation of the remand extension was supplied when it was asked for by the detenu.

The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.

It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases and in ground case referred to above. It is an admitted position that the detenu had filed no bail application in the ground case in Crime No. 191/2008 u/s 397 IPC registered by velayuthamPalayam Police Station. Under the circumstances, the detaining authority has stated in its order that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It was only an apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority and mere apprehension would not be sufficient to pass an order of detention. To pass such an order, the Act requires a specific material, which would impel the authority to make such an observation. In the absence of such material, making such an observation is without any basis and hence, the order of detention has got to be set aside.

Insofar the second ground is concerned, the petitioner ha specifically stated in the grounds of attack made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that Tamil version of the remand extension was not given to him. When the affidavit counter is perused, no specific denial is made by the State. Thus, it would be quite clear that no translated version of the remand extension was given to the petitioner in order to enable him to understand the contents of the same, which would also make the order suffer. On these two grounds, the Court is satisfied that the order of detention has got to be set aside.

Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.