The main legal point established is that the respondents acted in good faith and there was no mala fide intention in the petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.

1. Thepetitioner served in the Indian Army for a period of seven years and thereafter, joined in the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Services and retired as Inspector of Police, Athur Police Station, Salem District on 310. 1997. After his retirement, he had the opportunity of realizing the difficulties encountered by each and every member of the police force in Tamil Nadu and had voiced the merits of forming an association through which the demands of the members of the police force could be legally made to set right the wrongs committed to them. In the Tamil Daily Malai Murasu dated 12. 1997, there was a news item allegedly authored by N.Sengodan, the petitioner herein in his capacity as State Convenor, Tamil Nadu Police Officials Association. Based on the said news item, a complaint dated 1. 1998 was lodged by the fourth respondent with the third respondent Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Salem City. The third respondent registered a case in Crime No.11/98 for offence under section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 and for offence under section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested by the third respondent and was remanded to judicial custody. While he was in judicial custody, an order of detention dated 1. 1998 passed by the second respondent Inspector General and Commissioner of Salem City was served on him. The order of detention was passed by the second respondent based on the proposal submitted by the third respondent. The petitioner made a written representation to the Secretary to Government on 12. 1998 through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. The Advisory Board established under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 recommended for revocation of the detention order. The Government of Tamil Nadu revoked the order of detention made by the Inspector General and Commissioner of Police.

.2. The petitioner would contend that the order of detention was clamped against him with a mala fide intention of detaining him under Act 14/1982. The petitioner was detained under Act 14/1982 for a period of two months. The ground case also was dropped by the learned Judicial Magistrate V, Salem based on the final report submitted by the third respondent in the month of June 2001.

.Respondents 2 to 4 have acted with an object of destroying the reputation and image of the petitioner. The petitioner issued lawyers notice dated 26. 2002 claiming damages, but, the respondents gave a reply claiming immunity to their actions. Alleging that the petitioner, along with his family members, underwent mental agony and physical sufferings, he sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/= from the respondents.

3. The first respondent has contended in the counter that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. The petitioner, having falsely claimed to be the Convenor of the Tamil Nadu Police Employees Association, visited several Districts and insisted the members of the Disciplined Forces to join the said association so as to raise their voice against the Government. The order of detention was passed by the second respondent only after obtaining legal advice. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 12. 1998 undertaking that he would not indulge in any such activity in future. The Advisory Board, after perusing the order of detention, report of the detaining authority, the written representation of the detenu dated 12. 1998 and the connected records, expressed its opinion that there was no sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The Government revoked the order of detention passed as against the petitioner based on the advice of the Advisory Board. The final report was filed dropping the proceedings as against the petitioner only based on the fact that the detention order was revoked by the Advisory Board and the petitioner kept up his undertaking not to indulge in any activity for the next three years. The order of detention was p