(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)

1. This petition challenges an order of the second respondent dated 16.6.2010, whereby the petitioners relative by name Logu alias Loganathan was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Bootlegger.

2. All the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge, are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the said detenu was involved in four adverse cases namely (1) Tindivanam PEW Cr.No.1578/2009 under Sec.4(1)(a) TNP Act; (2) Tindivanam PEW Cr.No.1650/2009 under Sec.4(1)(a), 4(1-A) @ 4(1)(a) TNP Act; (3) Marakanam PS Cr.No.803/2009 under Sec.4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) 4(1-A) TNP Act and (4) Marakanam PS Cr.No.179/2010 under Sec.4(1-A)(aaa) TNP Act and also in a ground case registered by Marakanam PS in Crime No.192/2010 under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1-A) and 4(1)(aaa) TNP Act for an occurrence that had taken place on 7.5.2010, and he was arrested on the same day and on scrutiny of the entire materials, the detaining authority namely the second respondent herein, has made the order under challenge after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order.

4. At the time of advancing arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged the following two points which, according to him, would suffice to set aside the order.

(i) He moved for bail in Crl.M.P.No.3472/2010 on the file of the Principal Sessions Division, Villupuram, in the ground case, and the same was dismissed on 4.6.2010. But, in the course of the order as found in page 134 of the booklet, it is stated that he was a habitual offender, and apart from that, the proceedings have been initiated against him under Act 14/82, and under the circumstances, that application was dismissed. It would be quite clear that the order under challenge dated 16.6.2010, was a pre-determination of the department.

(ii) The property was actually seized on 7.5.2010, when the case was registered by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing. It is stated in page 118 of the booklet as if the property was sent to the Court on 11.5.2010, and thus there was a delay of 3 or 4 days. How the delay was caused in that process, a clarification should have been called for by the detaining authority, but not done so. Hence it has got to be set aside.

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

6. As could be seen above, the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order, has made the order under challenge. Insofar as the first ground, admittedly, the detenu moved a bail application in the ground case before the Principal Sessions Division, Villupuram, in Crl.M.P.No.3472/2010, and the same was dismissed on 4.6.2010. In that order as found in page 134 of the booklet, it is incorporated that he was a habitual offender, and proceedings have been initiated against him under Act 14/82. Under the circumstances, there was a pre-determination on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order under challenge. Hence it has become defective.

7. As regards the second ground urged by the petitioners side, it is true that the property was actually seized on 7.5.2010, when the accused was arrested. But a perusal of page 118 of the booklet would go to show that it was received by the Court only on 11.5.2010. Thus there was a delay of 3 or 4 days. In such circumstances, the detaining authority should have called for a clarification, but not done so. Hence the order is infirm. On both the grounds, this Court is of the view that the order has got to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petiti