In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 27/03/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1325 of 2005
S. Ganapathy .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai, Chennai 8.
2. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr. N. Doraisamy
For respondents : Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam
Govt., Advocate (Crl.)
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)
The petitioner by name Ganapathy, challenges the
impugned order of detention dated 27.07.2005, detaining his friend
Krishnamurthy, as “Goonda” under Section 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″).
2. Heard both sides.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised
the only contention that though the detenu received a reply dated 28.09.2005
from the Government mentioning that all the documents were served to one
Padhma, according to the counsel, she is not related to any one. He also
points out that even in respect of other detenus her name has been mentioned.
4. With regard to the said contention, we sought
clarification from the learned Government Advocate. From the records, learned
Government Advocate brought to our notice that immediately after the arrest of
the accused, the arrest intimation, copy of the arrest memo, remand order,
etc., were communicated to the mother of the detenu by name Padhma. He also
brought to our notice that the detenu was detained as Goonda by proceedings
dated 27.07.2005 and the same was intimated to his wife by name Ilavarasi on
28.07.2005. He also produced the acknowledgment to show that the same was
received by his wife Ilavarasi.
On going through the above materials, we are unable to
accept the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Except the above said contention, no other contention was raised; hence, this
petition fails and the same is dismissed.
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Egmore, Chennai.
