Delay in considering representations can be properly explained.

M.E.N.PATRUDU,J

1.00 Parties:

1.01 DOG RAVI is the pet name of the detenu though his real name is Ravikumar.

1.02 It is stated before us that like Gabbar Singh in SHOLAY and Mugambo in Mr. India, he too claims as terror in Tamil Nadu, more particularly in Southern Districts of the State.

1.03 His mother is the petitioner herein. She is challenging the legality and correctness of the order of detention.

1.04 The first respondent is the State represented by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and the second respondent is the Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu.

2.00 Counsel

2.01 Sri. V.Kathirvelu, learnedadvocate argued for the petitioner.

2.02 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3.00 Facts:

3.01 The first respondent has passed the detention order on 13.9.2005 and the same was served on the detenu on the next day i.e. 14.9.2005. The detention order runs into 10 pages disclosing the ground case, adverse cases and the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the reasons for his preventive detention.

GROUNDS OF DETENTION:-

3.02 (A) Ground Case It is stated that on 17.8.2005 at about 9.00 hrs., the detenu demanded money from the victim Subramani for his expenses and when the victim questioned the detenu, he introduced himself as popular rowdy of Ellis Nagar and he is involved in number of murder and robbery cases and the victim should know this. When the victim did not pay money, the detenu took out a knife and threatened to stab the victim and thereafter, robbed Rs.3,500/-from his pocket. When the victim raised alarm, neighbors went there and immediately the detenu waived the knife threatening the public saying that he would stab them and pull out their intestines if any one dares to come closer, resulting panic in the minds of the public making the men and women to run on the roads due to fear and the traffic came to a standstill and the business establishments have to bring down the shutters.

After the detenu left the place the victim preferred a police complaint, which was registered as Crime No.1865 of 2005 in B.16, Anna Nagar Police Station for offences under Section 392 and 397 IPC and investigation has been commenced and the detenu was arrested and the booty was seized and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody and the remand is being extended from time to time.

3.03 Adverse cases The order of detention discloses that the detenu was involved in three adverse cases, which are-

(i) Crime No.290/2001 for offences u/s.302, 380, 449, 396, 397, 109 IPC wherein the detenu along with others committed dacoity and robbed Rs.20,000/-and 33 sovereign gold jewels from the house of the victim Susila Devi after murdering her.

(ii) Crime No.424 of 2001 of B.14 Sellur Police Station for offences under Section 307, 224, 332 and 224 IPC and the allegations are that the detenu assaulted the head constable and caused injury on his right rib. (iii) crime No.847/2004 for Criminal conspiracy and the murder of former Law Minister of Tamil Nadu by name Aladi Aruna.

Other Grounds:

3.04 The detention order reveals that the detenu was granted bail in the earlier adverse cases but not in the ground case and bail application was filed and was dismissed. The detaining authority observed that if the detenu comes out on bail, he will indulge in future criminal activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

3.05 Subjective satisfaction of the detention authority has been mentioned in para 7 of the detention order by stating that the perusal of documents, it is established that the activities of detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as such he is detained as goonda. It is clearly stated that he has committed crimes in the public places, in busy localities creating alarm and insecurity in the minds of the people and thereby the public order is at stake.

3.06 All the other mandatory procedural requirem