Preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 requires evidence of habitual criminal behavior, and a single incident is insufficient to justify detention as a 'Goonda'.

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

All the five petitions in H.C.P.Nos.1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 2021 of 2009 filed on behalf of five detenus were heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order as the basic allegations are common.

2. The orders of preventive detention have been passed in respect of each detenu under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video pirates Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

3. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that Anandakumar, the detenu in HCP.No.1970/2009, stored the manufactured crackers on the eve of Deepavali festival in the building of Jaishankar, the detenu in HCP.No.2021/2009, in Door No.94, Pallipet – Sholingur Main Road and doing cracker business without any valid licence for possession and sale on 16.10.2009 and at 6.30 pm on the same day, while the business was actively going on in the sale of crackers, suddenly fire broke out and crackers started to blast and people inside the building who were purchasing crackers were unable to come out of the building and the emission of smoke and fire engulfed the entire area and the Policemen and the Fire Service personnel extinguished the fire and collected 32 bodies with 100% burns and the crime has occurred only because there is neither proper licence nor safety measures were followed by the owner of the building Jaishankar, the detenu in HCP.No.2021/2009, the tenant of the godown viz. Anandakumar, the detenu in HCP.No.1970/2009 and the workers, namely, Madhanmohan alias Madhu, the detenu in HCP.No.1968/2009, Babu alias Jagadeesh, the detenu in HCP.No.1971/2009 and Chandra Babu alias Babu, the detenu in HCP.No.1969/2009 and all are responsible for the cause of death and on the written complaint by Village Administrative Officer Syed Babu, the Inspector of Police, R.K. Pet Circle, Pallipet Police Station registered a case in Crime No.427/2009 under Sections 286, 337, 338, 304 IPC read with Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosive Act and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act and the detenus were remanded to judicial custody in the said case.

4. On the basis of such basic allegation, the Detaining Authority has come to the conclusion that the detenus have acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph No.4 in the grounds of detention in respect of the detenu Anandakumar is extracted below:-

"4) The Crime No.427/2009 of Pallipet Police Station registered for the Offences under Section 286, 337, 338, 304 IPC read with Section 9(B)(1)(b) Explosive Act and 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act is an offence affecting the human body, offence against property, offence of criminal intimidation in chapters XIV and XVI. Hence I am satisfied that Anandakumar is habitually committing crime and is also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. By committing the above described grave crime in the public place, he has created a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of that area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."

5. Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in H.C.P.Nos.1968 to 1971 of 2009, assailed the detention orders mainly on the following grounds:

(1) The orders of detention are based on a solitary incident and there is no material to show that the detenus were habitually committing crime and they cannot be labelled as "Goondas" under Section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and therefore the orders of detention cannot be maintained.

(2) The subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that there is a real possibility of the detenus coming out on bail, is not based on any cogent materials, more particularly, i