The judgment emphasizes the requirement for detaining authorities to have cogent material to support their decisions and the mandatory duty to inform close relatives about the arrest.

M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner/detenu, Syed Abdul Khadar @ Appu @ Akash has brought forth this application seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging the order of detention made against him by the second respondent in No.75/BDFGISSV/2009, dated 16.09.2009, terming him as Goonda and detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set him at liberty forthwith.

2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court also perused the order under challenge along with the grounds of detention. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the State.

3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority that the petitioner/detenu was involved in two adverse cases, which were Crime No.35/2008 registered by Anti Vice Squad Police Station, Chennai Police under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a) & 7(1) of ITP Act and Crime No.3/2009 registered by Crime Branch CID Anti Trafficking Cell under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1) (a), 6(1) of ITP act 1956 and also a ground case in Crime No.106/2009 registered by Sub Urban Police, Central Crime Branch under section 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a) and 6(1) of I.t.P. Act, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of the materials available and after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace and hence, he was to be termed as Goonda and further, in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, an order of detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was made, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

.4. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, interalia, the learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu raised two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner moved for bail before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee and the same was dismissed on 19. 2009. The order of detention came to be passed on the very next day i.e., on 19. 2009. A perusal of paragraph 4 of the order under challenge would indicate the detaining authority was aware of the dismissal of the order but it has neither pointed out the date of dismissal nor the correct number of the application seeking for bail, but on the contrary, the authority has pointed out that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bail application before the lower Court or Sessions Court or High Court. In a given case like this, when the bail application was dismissed on the very previous day to the date of detention order, that too, when the authorities are aware of the same,

.observing that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is without any basis or any materials whatsoever. The law would require cogent material to take such a view which is not available in this case.

5. As the second ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in so far as the arrest is concerned, the law would mandate to inform about the arrest of the detenu to the close relatives. In the instant case, as could be seen from the booklet, a telegraphic message was given to the wife of the detenu/petitioner but a copy of the telegraphic message was neither placed before the detaining authority nor given to the detenu/ petitioner. Under such circumstances, it would not satisfy the mandatory requirement. Hence, on those grounds the detention order has got to be set aside.

6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.

7. As stated above, on the strength of the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has made the detention order after recording the subjective satisfaction on scrutiny of the materials available in respect or two adverse cases and one ground case that it is a fit case to detain the petition