IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 24/02/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR
HCP No.1140 of 2005
B.Shanmugam ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by the
Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector
and District Magistrate,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Mamallapurm Circle,
(I/C. Kelambakkam Circle),
Kancheepuram District. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents herein to cause
production of the detenu R.Shanmugam, male, aged 30 years, son of
Balakrishnan, detained at Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set
him at liberty forthwith and to call for the records vide Detention Order in
BDFGISV No.30 of 2005 dated 31.3.2005 passed by the second respondent and
quash the same.
!For Petitioner : Mr.N.Doraiswamy
^For Respondents : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner, who is detained 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 by the impugned order of detention dated 31.03.2005 (Tamil
Nadu Act 14 of 1982), challenges the same in this Petition.
2. Since the counsel, who filed the above Petition, did not turn up
on the last two occasions as well as today, we requested Mr.N. Doraiswamy to
act as Amicus Curiae for disposal of the above Writ Petition.
3. Heard Mr.N.Doraiswamy, Amicus Curiae as well as the learned
Government Advocate for the respondents.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the above Petition, the
petitioner has stated that the detention order came to be passed due to mala
fide action on the part of the respondents and hence, the same is not
sustainable in law. It is further stated that no materials were placed before
the Detaining Authority in order to arrive at a subjective satisfaction. It
is further stated that the detention order is vague, uncertain and that the
grounds stated therein are not sufficient to detain the petitioner under Act
14 of 1982.
5. With reference to the said contentions, we verified the grounds of
detention, which show that before passing the order of detention, the
Detaining Authority has taken note of the involvement of the detenu in the
earlier cases. It is seen that the first adverse case relates to the period
between 06.09.2002 and 19.09.2002 and the offences committed are punishable
under Sections-457 and 380 IPC. The said incident relates to Crime No.395 of
2002 on the file of Guduvancheri Police Station and the case is pending trial.
The second adverse case relates to Cr. No.23 of 2005, the occurrence is dated
17.01.2005, and the offences committed are punishable under Sections 395 and
397 IPC. The third adverse case occurrence is dated 21.01.2005 and it relates
to Cr. No.26 of 2005 on the file of Sunguvarchatram Police Station. The
offence involved therein is punishable Section 395 IPC. Adverse case Nos.2
and 3 are under investigation.
6. The ground case relates to an occurrence that took place on 26.01
.2005. The Crime Number of the same is No.31 of 2005 on the file of
Kelambakkam Circle and the offences involved are punishable under Sections
448, 398, 336 and 506 (ii) IPC. The grounds further show that the Detaining
Authority, after taking into consideration all the above aspects and after
being satisfied with the fact that if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in
such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order, passed the impugned order of detention. In such circumstances,
it cannot be claimed that the detention order was passed without any material.
It is also brought to our notice by the learned Government Advocate that
neither the detenu nor anyone has made any representation to the Government,
highlighting their grievance. On going through all the materials including
the grounds of detention as well as the points raised in the affidavit, we are
satisfied that there is no valid ground for interference.
7. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(P.S., J.) (J.A.K.S., J.) Index: yes Internet: yes JI. To 1. District Collector, Kancheepuram. 2. Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.
(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.
6. The Inspector of Police, Mamallapurm Circle,
(I/C.Kelambakkam Circle), Kancheepuram District.