Preventive detention under the 'Goonda' Act (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) is only permissible when there is a clear, live, and proximate link to activities threatening public order, as distinct from mere 'law and order' problems, such as individual cases of contractual breach or financial cheating.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

1.The writ petitioner's father Thiru Santhosh Sharma was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a “Goonda” vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the then Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed on various grounds.

2. On behalf of the detaining authority, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and the learned State Public Prosecutor took us through its contents.

3. The case of the respondents is that the detenu came under adverse notice in Crime No.100 of 2023 on the file of CCB-II, Chennai and Crime No.157 of 2025 on the file of the CCB-I, Chennai. Crime No.178 of 2025 is the ground case which led to the passing of the detention order. One Ravi is the defacto complainant. He entered into a sale and construction agreement with M/s. Lokaa Developers Pvt. Ltd., and had booked a triple bedroom apartment. The defacto complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,38,08,095/- to the builder/developer. The detenu and his wife are Directors in the said company. Agreements were signed on 17.03.2017 and sale consideration had been paid in installments by 10.11.2018. The construction agreement bearing Document No.334/2019 and sale deed bearing Document No.335/2019 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Madhavaram were executed by one Ganesan on behalf of the developer. But the apartment was not handed over to Ravi. Instead, one Madhavarajan, the authorised signatory of the company, executed construction agreement and sale deed bearing Document Nos.8480 and 8481 of 2021 on 16.12.2021 in favour of Kalpana Sharma. Kalpana Sharma mortgaged the said property with M/s.LIC Housing Finance Limited vide Doc.No.8482 of 2021 for a loan amount of Rs.1,20,65,000/-. Ravi, the defacto complainant, came to know about these malpractices during 2024. When he questioned the detenu and Kalpana Sharma, he did not receive proper response. According to Ravi, to cheat him, documents were forged and property was registered in favour of Kalpana Sharma. Based on this complaint, Crime No.178 of 2025 was registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC on 29.08.2025 at 21.00 Hrs. Santosh Sharma as well as his wife were arrested.

4. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer came to know that the detenu and his wife have already been arrested on 01.09.2025 in connection with the adverse case in Crime No.157 of 2025 and remanded to judicial custody. They were formally arrested on 08.09.2025. The investigation is still pending. The detaining authority was satisfied that the detenue had committed crimes and that with an intention to cheat the complainant, the detenu had forged documents and executed forged sale deed in favour of his wife and subsequently raised funds by mortgaging the same with LIC Housing Finance Limited. The satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is captured in Para 4 of the detention order, which reads as follows:

“Based on the above material placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the above said Thiru Santhosh Sharma is a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 .)”

5. The question that calls for consideration is whether the impugned detention order is legally sustainab