Suseela vs State of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name Suseela, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 19.09.2005, detaining her son

Nandhakumar as ""Bootlegger"" u/s 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders,

Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short ""Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"").

Heard both sides.

At the foremost learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore,

dated 31.08.2005, in and by which it is stated that the accused therein, i.e., the detenu is to be detained as Bootlegger under Tamil Nadu Act 14

of 1982. According to him the said aspect amply proves that the authorities pre-determined to pass detention order.

It is not in dispute that the detention order was passed on 19.09.2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner when the

bail application, viz., Crl.M.P. No. 7056 of 2005 of the petitioner therein/detenu was before the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, it was

represented by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner is likely to be detained under B.L. Act. On the basis of the said information,

the learned Judge dismissed the bail petition. It is also brought to our notice that though the sponsoring authority has submitted his affidavit on

08.09.2005, praying for an order under Act 14 of 1982, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not clear how a

representation was made that the accused is likely to be detained under Act 14 of 1982. In the light of the information furnished to the Court even

well prior to the submission of affidavit by the sponsoring authority for taking action under Act 14 of 1982, we are satisfied that the respondents

have already determined to put the detenu under Act 14 of 1982, which vitiates the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority. On this

ground, the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is quashed; accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order of detention impugned in

the petition is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other

case.