K.N. BASHA, J.

1. This matter has been placed before this Bench on the orders of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice in the following background:

(i) The Petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu by name Madhavan @ Kannan, has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the Second Respondent by the proceedings in No.62/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 18.8.2010 holding that the detenu as a “Goonda" as he is indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(ii) This Petition was originally filed before the Madurai Bench of this Court. When the matter was heard by a Division Bench consisting of one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.Sudanthiram) as the member of the Bench, the main contention made was the solitary incident of robbery mentioned in the ground case cannot attract the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Vidoe Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter reffered to as “the Act”) to pass the impugned detention order. In support of such contention, a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Rajendran v. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Egmore and another 4642, was relied upon. The said decision was rendered by the Division Bench mainly following two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in R. Kalavathi v. State of T.N., 2006 (4) CTC 566 (SC): 2006 (6) SCC 14; and Darban Kumar Sharma @ Dharban Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2003 (1) Crimes 446.

(iii) The Division Bench, after going through the above said two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, expressed its reservation in respect of the decision of the Division Bench in Rajendran v. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Egmore and another, (cited supra). It is relevant to refer the particular paragraph of the order of the Division Bench expressing its reservation as hereunder:

“5. We have our own reservation as regards the said decision. To quote the decision of the Apex court reported Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda, in 2004 (2) Supreme 150 : AIR 2004 SC 1625, law has to be justified by striking the right balance between individual liberty on the one hand and the needs of an orderly society on the other. Given the object of the enactment that preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive, we doubt the correctness of the law declared by this Court that one instance of ground case would not be a sufficient legal compliance in testing the conduct of the detenu as likely to affect adversely the maintenance of law. Going by the purport of the Legislation and that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Darpan Kumar Sharma alias Dharban Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu, relates to a case as regards the detenu threatening the victim alone and there were no material that by committing the offence, the detenu endangered the public peace and orderliness, we feel that the law declared by this Court in the decision reported in Rajendran v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore and another, requires to be tested and re-considering before the Full Bench of this court.”

(iv) In view of the above said reason, the Division Bench directed the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble chief Justice and accordingly the Hon’ble Chief Justice has directed the matter to be posted before this Full Bench and that is how the matter is before this bench for consideration.

2. Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would contend that the solitary instance mentioned in the grounds of detention would not be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In support of his contention, learned Counsel reliance on the following decisions.:

(i) Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Police commissioner, Ahmedabad, AIR 1989 SC 491;

(ii) T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1990 SC 1086; and

(iii) Shri Mustakmiy