Non-application of mind by the detaining authority in passing order of detention.

The detenu who has been detained as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, seeks to be released contending that the detention order dated 4.3.2004 is vitiated by several grounds.

2. Though several grounds have been raised, we are inclined to hold that two of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserve serious consideration. We do not find it necessary to deal with the other grounds raised by him, considering that he is entitled to be released on one of the two grounds discussed below.

3. On 13.2.2004 at about 5.45 p.m., Senthil Kumar, the complainant is alleged to have been threatened by four persons including the detenu who had come in two motorcycles. The complainant was restrained by four individuals and was abused by them. He was threatened to part with his belongings. But when the complainant replied that he had nothing with him, one of the four persons took out a knife and threatened the complainant, while the detenu is alleged to have inserted his hand into the complainant's shirt pocket and took away Rs.150/-, while another snatched away his wrist watch. The complainant shouted and when the public around the place rushed to the spot, the assailants are alleged to have attempted to escape after creating a scene of violence by picking up glass tumblers from the mobile tea shop and by throwing and breaking the glass tumblers into pieces on the road. There was a total panic in the area, resulting in traffic dislocation. However, the public, with the help of the police, successfully caught them and they were taken to Shastri Nagar Police Station. A complaint was lodged by Senthil Kumar, which was registered as Crime No.122 of 2004 under Sections 341, 336, 392, 427 and 506(ii), I.P.C. The Inspector took up investigation, visited the spot and prepared the observation mahazar and recorded statements of witnesses. Subsequently, confession statements of the four accused were recorded. They were later remanded to custody.

4. The Inspector, after taking note of the fact that the detenu was a chronic offender, having to his credit at least eight previous cases against him, felt that in public interest, he was liable to be detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Hence, the impugned order of detention.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner very strenuously contends that in order to detain a person as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the basic requirement is not only to show that the detenu was involved in the ground case, but also that he was habitually addicted to the commission of the said offences. According to him, the detenu was involved in one complaint under Sections 420 and 384 of I.P.C., while the rest of the seven adverse cases related only to theft under Section 379, I.P.C. The ground case was the only case registered as a case of robbery and hence, a single case of robbery was not sufficient to invoke preventive detention. Apart from citing cases in support of his contention dealing with the expression "habitual", strong reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA @ DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2003 (1) CTC 382). Reference is made to the following observations:

"In the present case, the three alleged incidents to which the Commissioner of Police has referred to are thefts arising under Section 379 IPC and, therefore, there is only a solitary instance wherein the detenu is alleged to have robbed in a public place one Kumar. Therefore, there is no material on record to show that the reach and potentiality of the single incident of robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or normal life of the community in the locality or disturb the general peace and tranquility or create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality. Though in the grounds of detention the detaining authority had stated that by committing this offence in public the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the m