IMPORTANT POINT
Mere utterance of threat in the process of escape after the commission of a crime, arising out of personal vendetta, which does not affect the a normal and even tempo of public life, can not give rise to clamping order of preventive detention.

ORDER

Arunachalam, J. - These two habeas corpus petitions are disposed of together by a common order since the detenu in each one of these petitions is stated to be involved in the same ground case and further the contentions raised are identical.

2. In both these habeas corpus petitions, detenus themselves are the petitioners. First respondent, who is the Commissioner of Police, Madras City, has passed the impugned orders of preventive detention against the petitioners, by orders dated 29.7.1992 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, with a view to preventing each one of the detenus from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

3. The grounds of detention refer to two adverse crimes on the file of Choolaimedu Police Station registered in respect of occurrences, that had taken place on 15.6.1991 and 29.4.1992 in which the detenus are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 324,426,336 and 506 (ii) I.P.C.

4. The ground instance is alleged to have taken place on 7.7.1992 at of about 7-45 a.m. Pandian, the victim fatally attacked, had personal animosity with Bullet Rajendran arising out of political differences. Two months prior to occurrence, Pandian had told his wife Dr. Chitra, that his life was in danger on account of Bullet Rajendran. On 7.7.1992 at 7-30 a.m. Pandian left his house with Dr. Chitra in his car and was proceeding through Sivan Koil Cross Street. While he was attempting to negotiate the curve towards Vellala Street at 7-45 a.m. he found an auto bearing Registration No. T.N. -01-CC. 6178 driven by one Sivakumar halting before his car. Pandian could not move further. Suddenly, both the detenus in the company of others alighted from the said auto, armed with patla knives. Both the detenus broke the front side glass of Pandian's car. Another accused pulled out the wife of Pandian by her hair at or about the same time. Detenu in H.C.P. No. 681 of 1992 should as follows:

Matter in other language

Immediately, delenu in H.C.P. No. 680 of 1992 attacked Pandian with patta knife on his chest. When Dr. Chitra intervened, she sustained an injury on her left forearm. When she shouted, her thali was pulled off by another accused Kamal. It is needless to add that all the accused concerned in the crime had butcherted victim Pandian. Dr. Chitra raised a hue and cry for help. Detenu in H.C.P. No. 680 of 1992 shouted as follows:

Matter in other language

The public noticing the atrocious activities of both the detenus and others ran away from the spot out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. Again Dr. Chitra cried for help. Immediately the auto driver called his associates to get into the said auto. All the accused, including the detenus, got into the auto and escaped from the scene. Detenus were arrested during the course of investigation, produced before the concerned Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. After follow up action the impugned orders of detention were passed.

5. Mr. Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is both these habeas corpus petitions, contended that, if at all, there was a probing law and order and there was no scope for holding that the detenus had acted in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Another contention was that there was enormous delay in disposal of the representations of the detenus dated 12.9.1992, without even calling for para wise remarks.

6. On these two contentions, we have heard Mr. 1. Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He submitted that the facts placed before the detaining authority in every case should focus the problem of it, being one of law and order or disturbance to public order, As far as the second contention is concerned, he submitted that the representations dated 12.9.1992 were disposed of on 12.9.1992 without any delay after consideration of all aspects.

7. We have carefully conside