Sundari vs The State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 09.01.2006, detaining her grand son by name

Rakesh 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).

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the foremost, submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu.

The particulars furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor show that the representation was received by the Government on 2

2.2.2006; remarks were called for on 23.02.2006; remarks were received on 28.02.2006; File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and

Deputy Secretary on 01.03.2006; Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 02.03.2006, Rejection Letter was prepared on

03.03.2006; the said letter was sent to the detenu on 06.03.2006 and served to him on 07.03.2006. If we exclude the intervening holidays, we are

of the view that there is no let up or delay as claimed by the petitioner. On the other hand, we are satisfied that the representation of the detenu

was duly considered and disposed of without undue delay, hence, we reject the said contention.

Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that though the detention order was passed on 09.01.2006, the said order alone was served

to the detenu on 10.01.2006 and the grounds of detention and other connected materials were served only on 13.01.2006 with a delay of five

days. This is unconstitutional as the detenu was not informed about the grounds of detention at the time of serving the detention order.

The aforesaid contention is liable to be rejected since it is not in dispute that the detention order was served on the next day, ie., on 10.01.2006.

As per Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the grounds of detention have to be served on the detenu not later than five days from the

date of detention. In view of the fact that the grounds of detention and other materials were served on the detenu on 13.01.2006, ie., within the

prescribed period, the said contention is rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by pointing out that the detenu was arrested on 25.12.2005, remanded on 26.12.2005 till 09.01.200 6 and

the detention order was passed on 09.01.2006; would submit that the Detaining Authority failed to mention at what time, the detention order was

passed. He also contended that, since the remand was not extended on 09.01.2006, the detention order passed on the said date is illegal; and that

the order was passed in a hurried manner to victimise the detenu as Goonda.

Here again, we are unable to accept the said contention since, on 26.12.2005, learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai-

1, on production of the detenu/accused and a co-accused at 5.20 P.M., after recording no complaints against the police, remanded them till

09.01.2006. It is not in dispute that the detention order was passed on 09.01.2006. Since, on the date of passing of the detention order, the

detenu was in custody, based on a valid remand order, the contention that the detention order is illegal is liable to be rejected. Further, there is no

compulsion on the part of the Detaining Authority to mention the time when he passed the order of detention dated 09.01.2006. Thus, we reject

the said contention.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to para No. 5 of the grounds of detention, wherein it is mentioned that, if the detenu

wishes to make any representation to the Detaining Authority, he should address the same to Thiru.R.Nataraj, I.P.S., Commissioner of Police,

Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8; would submit that the order passed by the second respondent is not legally maintainable since the second

respondent has mentioned his name.

We are unable to accept the said contention also. The above reference makes it clear that the detenu is free to make representation to the

Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, and merely because there is a reference to the name of the Commissioner, it cannot be said

that the detenu was prejudiced in making the representation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the detention order contains all the details relating to the ground case, there is

failure on the part of the Authority to mention the particulars relating to the adverse cases. We perused the grounds of detention. It contains the

details relating to five adverse cases viz., date of occurrence, offences involved, Crime Number, Police Station and stage of the investigation. The

Detaining Authority, after taking note of the involvement of the detenu in criminal activities viz., committing theft, in the adverse cases as well as the

ground case occurrence that took place on 25.12.2005 and after referring to all the details, on being satisfied that the presence of the detenu in the

society would affect public order and public peace, passed the detention order. We do not find any error or procedural flaw in passing the

detention order. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.

Finally, learned Counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the documents available at page Nos.79 to 86 of the paper book

supplied to the detenu, contended that in view of the discrepancies in mentioning the dates relating to arrest, confession statement etc., it is

apparent that the respondents have foisted the ground case in order to detain him as Goonda. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the

said contention by taking us through the details in the Special Report sent to the Detaining Authority which is available in the paper book. We

verified the same. As rightly pointed out, there is no discrepancy in mentioning the date of arrest or date of confession. The confession statement

and statements of other accused are available in the paper book vide page Nos.73 to 86. Recovery mahazars, which are available at page Nos.33

and 52, make it clear that the stolen properties were recovered at the instance of the detenu and his associate. In all the documents, which have

been duly attested, names of the detenu and his Associate Raja are specifically mentioned. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.

In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.