IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 13/03/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1284 of 2005
Ranjith ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate cum
District Collector,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with
the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 3 0.06.2005 in
C2/35289/2005 against the petitioner's friend Senguttuvan, Son of Ramamurthy,
aged about 34 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore and set
aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this
Court and set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban
^For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner, who is the friend of the detenu by name Senguttuvan,
who was detained as a ‘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), by the impugned detention order dated 30.06.2005,
challenges the same in this Petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. It is not in dispute that this is the second petition challenging
the very same order. Though in the earlier petition viz.,HCP No.755 of 2005,
several contentions have been raised and this Court, after meeting the same,
dismissed the same, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
details furnished in the grounds does not show that there was public order
warranting invocation of Act 14 of 1 982.
4. In the light of the said contention, we verified the earlier order
passed on 8.11.2005 in HCP No.755 of 2005 as well as necessary averments in
the grounds of detention. Verification of those details amply show that on
15.06.2005 at about 15.30 hours at old bus stand, Villupuram, the detenu and
his associates holding a Veecharuval and on seeing the police party headed by
Balasubramanian, Sub Inspector of Police, threatened that “we are going to
murder those policemen”. When the police party attempted to stop them, the
detenu and his associates tried to cut the head of the Sub Inspector of Police
and the cut fell on his right hand and caused an injury. When the police
party attempted to catch hold of them, the detenu and his associates wielded
Veecharuval and shouted “vtd;dh fpl;l te;jP’;fd;dh nghl;L js;Sntz; lh” and
also picked soda bottles from the nearby shops, broked those bottles on the
ground and thereby caused alarm and terror in the minds of the public gathered
around there. The shop owners downed the shutters; the driver of the buses
ran away and the general public ran for safety. The grounds further proceed
that taking advantage of the chaotic condition, the detenu and his associates
escaped by running away. Based on the Special Report from the Sub Inspector
of Police, the Inspector of Police, Villupuram West had registered a case in
Crime No.377/2005 under Section 147, 148, 294, 427, 332, 341 and 307 IPC read
with 25(b) of Arms Act against the detenu and his associates. Taking note of
his involvement in other cases as well as the ground occurrence on 15.06.2005,
after satisfying himself that in order to maintain public peace and public
order, by invoking Section 14 of the Act, 1982, detained him as a “Goonda”.
In such circumstances, it cannot be claimed that there is no public order.
5. On the other hand, we are satisfied that the detaining authority,
after considering all the relevant materials, including the issue relating to
the public order, passed the detention order. We find no merit in the
contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Except the above
said contention, no other points have been urged. Accordingly, the Habeas
Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
raa
To
1. The Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu,Prohibition and
ExciseDepartment, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Villupuram District.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.