Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4633
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Vaitheeswari
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By the Secretary & Another
H.C.P.No.960 of 2010
Decided On : 26-10-2010
For the Petitioner:M.V. Muralidharan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The detaining authority's subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was considered valid, and the court found no infirmity in the detaining authority's actions.
Headnote:
Detention - Public Order - Act 14/82 - Sec.4(1)(aa) TNP Act, Sec.4(1)(i) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act - The court upheld the detention order branding the petitioner's husband as a Bootlegger under Act 14/82. The detaining authority's subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was considered. The court disagreed with the petitioner's counsel on all points raised, including the dismissal of the bail application and rejection of representation, and the lack of signatures on the arrest memo. The court found no infirmity in the detaining authority's actions and dismissed the habeas corpus petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges an order of detention made under Act 14/82 branding the petitioner's husband as a Bootlegger based on his involvement in adverse cases related to the TNP Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the detention order, disagreeing with the petitioner's counsel on all points raised and finding no infirmity in the detaining authority's actions.
Issues: The issues raised included the dismissal of the bail application, rejection of representation, and the lack of signatures on the arrest memo.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the detaining authority's actions were justified and that there was no infirmity in the rejection of the representation and dismissal of the bail application.
Final Decision: The habeas corpus petition was dismissed.
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 12.5.2010, whereby the petitioners husband Ganthi, was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Bootlegger.
2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also looked into all the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in four adverse cases namely (1) Chengam PS Cr.No.215/2010 under Sec.4(1)(aa) TNP Act; (2) Chengam PS Cr.No.311/2010 under Sec.4(1)(aa) TNP Act; (3) Chengam PS Cr.No.365/2010 under Sec.4(1)(aa) TNP Act and (4) Chengam PS Cr.No.74/2010 under Sec.4(1)(aa) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act @ 4(1) (aa) TNP Act and also in a ground case registered by Chengam PS in Cr.No.438/2010 under Sec.4(1)(i) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act for an occurrence that took place on 16.4.2010, and he was arrested on the very day, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the materials available took the view that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and hence made the order under challenge.
4. The learned Counsel raised three points at the time of advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner.
(i) The detenu moved Crl.O.P.No.9507 of 2010 before this Court, and the same was dismissed on 12.5.2010. On the very day, the order came to be passed, and the authority has recorded that it was pending, but stated that it is most likely that he may come out on bail.
(ii) There was a representation made on 3.5.2010, and as could be seen from para 5a) of the grounds of detention, it was also rejected. But it is pertinent to point out that the rejection order has been made on the very day when the order of detention came to be passed, and hence it would be indicative of the fact that it was not properly considered, and there was no proper application of mind for rejection of the representation.
(iii) The arrest memo as found in page 19 of the booklet, did not contain the signature of the police officer or the accused.
(iv) Though it is mentioned that the arrest intimation was given to the wife of the detenu, no material is available to indicate the same. Hence the order has got to be set aside.
5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on 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 the public order, has made the order under challenge. On scrutiny of the entire materials and consideration of the submissions made, this Court has to necessarily disagree with the learned Counsel on all the points. So far as the ground case in Crime No.438/2010 registered under the provisions of TNP Act, is concerned, he moved Crl.O.P.No.9507/2010 before this Court, and the same has also been dismissed on 12.5.2010. It is true that the order came to be passed on the very day. But paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention reads thus:
"5. I am aware that Thiru. Gandhi is in remand in Chengam P.S.Crime No.438/2010 and lodged in the Sub-Jail, Chengam. I am aware that a bail application was filed in District Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai Cr.M.P.No.1610/2010 on 21.04.2010 and it was dismissed by the court on the same day. I am also aware that subsequently he filed bail application before High Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.9507/2010 on 22.04.2010 and it is pending before the above court."
7. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the authority was very well aware that Crl.O.P.No.9507/2010 was filed before this Court on 22.4.2010, and the same was also pending on the day when the order came to be passed. It is pertinent to point out that the order of detention was passed on 12.5.
