The Detaining Authority should not consider the matter after receiving and recommending registration of the cases, and there was non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.

(M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)

1. This Habeas Corpus Petition challenges the order of detention passed by the second respondent in Memo No.310/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 17.09.2009, whereby the detenu is ordered to be detained under the Act 14 of 1982 after branding him as "Goonda".

2. This Court looked into all the materials available on record, in particular the order under challenge and also the order dated 5.3.2010 passed by this Court on earlier occasion in H.C.P. No.2079 of 2009. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in 26 adverse cases, which are as follows, and also one ground case in Crime No.405 of 2009 registered by Central Crime Branch, Chennai under Sections 406, 420, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 read with 328 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 40, 49B read with 51(1) Proviso of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials available on record, made the order under challenge after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Sl.No.

Police Station & Crime No.

Section of Law

1

E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.635/2009

420 I.P.C.

2 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.664/2009 420 I.P.C. 3 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.680/2009 420 I.P.C. 4 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.685/2009 420 I.P.C. 5 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.695/2009 420 I.P.C. 6 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.718/2009 420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w

328 I.P.C. 7 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.719/2009 420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w

328 I.P.C. 8 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.720/2009

420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w

328 I.P.C.

9

E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.721/2009

420 I.P.C.

10

E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.731/2009

420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w

328 I.P.C. 11 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.750/2009 420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w

328 I.P.C. 12 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.751/2009 420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w

328 I.P.C. 13 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.759/2009 420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328 I.P.C. 14 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.760/2009 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328 I.P.C. 15 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.772/2009 420 I.P.C. 16 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.773/2009 420 I.P.C. 17 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.802/2009 420 I.P.C. 18 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.803/2009 420 I.P.C. 19 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.804/2009 420 I.P.C.

20 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.806/2009 420 I.P.C. 21 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.824/2009 420 I.P.C. 22 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.825/2009 420 I.P.C. 23 E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.830/2009 420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w

328 I.P.C., Sec.30 Arms Act, 1959 read with 307 IPC. 24 CCB X Cr.No.386/2009 420 I.P.C. 25 CCB X Cr.No.395/2009 420 I.P.C. 26 CCB X Cr.No.402/2009

420, 420 & 506(ii) I.P.C.

4. Learned Senior counsel, while advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset, brought to the notice of this Court that originally a petition in H.C.P. No.2079 of 2009 was filed and the same was dismissed on 5.3.2010 and subsequently though a special leave petition was made before the Apex Court, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Now the grounds which are now raised in this habeas corpus petition were actually