Back
K.N. SINGH, M.H. KANIA AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.
Writ Petn. (Criminal) No.463 of 1989 D/- 7-3-1990.
Mrs. T. Devaki, Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of T.N. and others, Respondents.
Held: In the absence of any period being specified in the order the detenu is required to be under detention for the maximum period prescribed under the Act, but it is always open to the State Government to modify or revoke the order even before the completion of the maximum period of detention.
(para 11)
(ii) Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot - leggers, Drug - offenders, Forest Offenders, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 - Section 3(1) - Detention under- challenged - Single incident of murderous assault by the detenu and his associates on the Minister at the Seminar- Detenus activity disturbed the proceedings of the Seminar for a while- No material on record to show that the reach and potentiality of the aforesaid incident was so great as to disturb the normal life of the community in the locality or it disturbed general peace- Held: the solitary incident as alleged is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for, the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Held: The alleged attempted murderous assault made by the detenu and his associates on Thiru Durai Murugan, Minister for Public Works Department may have been made on account of political rivalry. In fact, in his affidavit Thim Durai Murugan has admitted that in the past the detenu had misbehaved with him even on the floor of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, while participating in discussion. The attempted assault took place in the hall of Dry Chilly Merchants Association Kalai Arangam where two Ministers, a number of officials including the District Magistrate, as well as members of the public were present. It is alleged that the. attempted murderous, assault on Thiru Durai Murugan created scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the persons present in the hall and the detenus action interrupted the "proceedings of the Seminar for a while" (emphasis supplied). This shows that the detenus activity disturbed the proceedings of the Seminar for a while but the Seminar appears to have continued later on. The incident did not and could not affect public peace and tranquillity nor it had potential to create a sense of alarm and insecurity, in the locality. How could a single murderous assault on the Minister concerned at the Seminar could prejudicially affect the even tempo of the life of the community? No doubt in paragraph 4 of the grounds of the detaining authority has stated that by committing this grave offence it) public, in broad day light, the detenu created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in. a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which affected even tempo of life of the community. Repetition of these words in the ground are not sufficient to inject the requisite degree of quality and potentiality in the incident in question. A solitary assault on one individual can hardly be said to disturb public peace or place public order in jeopardy so much as to bring the case within the purview of the Act. Such a solitary incident can only raise a law and order problem and no more. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that there potentiality of the aforesaid incident was great as to disturb the normal life of the community the locality or it disturbed general peace tranquility. In the absence of the such material is not possible to hold that the incident at the seminar was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. (Para 15)
(iii) Preventing Detention- The detaining authority was himself present and was an eyewitness to the occurrence on the basis of which detention order was made - It was imperative for the authority to have honestly and bona fide framed the requisite opinion in making the order of detention on the basis of his own knowledge and perception instead of relying more on the version of the incident as placed before him by the sponsoring authority. (Para 16)
Judgement
SINGH, J.:- This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, by Mrs. B. Devaki wife of the detenu R. Thamaraikani, challenges the validity of her husbands detention under the order of the Collector and District Magistrate of Kamarajar District Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu dated 15-8-1989 issued under S. 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (as amended by Act 52 of 1986 and Act 1 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length, we allowed the petition on 10-1 l- 1989 and issued directions for the release of the detenu forthwith. We are now giving the reasons for our order dated 10-11-1989.
3. The detenu R. Thamaraikani is a member of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party, briefly described as AIDMK. He has been an active social and political worker. He was elected Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from Srivilliputhur Constituency in the General Elections held in 1977, 1980 and 1984. In the General Elections held in January 1989 to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, he was defeated by the Dravida Munnetra Kazliagam Party candidate. He continues to be Joint Secretary of the AIDMK Party for Kamrajar District in Tamil Nadu and he has been taking active part in social and political activities in the District of Kamrajar. The petitioner has stated that there has been personal and political animosity between the detenu and Thiru Durai Murugan, Minister for Public Works and Highways in the present DMK Government. The District Magistrate issued the impugned order for the detention of her husband at the behest of Thiru Durai Murugan, the aforesaid Minister, respondent No. 3. The petitioner has referred to a number of incidents and to the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in support of her submission that there was political and personal animosity between the aforesaid Minister and her husband and the order of detention was made mala fide at the instance of the Minister, respondent No. 3.
4. The facts leading to the making of the impugned detention order are necessary to be noted. On 29-7-1989 a Seminar on Irrigation was held at Virudhunagar at the Dry Chilly Merchants Association Kalai Arangam, Aruppukkotai Road, which was attended by Thiru Durai Murugan and by Pon. Muthuramulingam, Minister of Labour and District Magistrate, Kamarajar and other important personalities. A number of political and social workers and agriculturists attended the Seminar. According to the petitioner the detenu was invited to attend the Seminar although it is denied by the respondents but there is no dispute that the detenu was present in the hall where the Seminar was held. The petitioner has asserted that the detenu wanted opportunity to address the gathering for placing the grievances of the local people before the gathering but he was not permitted to do so. He insisted for placing the grievances of his party before the audience whereupon he was forcibly removed away by the police and later a false criminal case was, registered against him under Ss. 147,148, 307 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and l S. 27 of the Indian Arms Act at the: Virudhunagar East Police Station. These allegations have been denied by the respondents. According to the respondents the detenu was not invited, even then he entered the hall where seminar was being held along with a number of persons and created disorderly scene in the hall which disturbed the Seminar. He threw a knife towards the Minister respondent No. 3, with an intention to kill him but he missed the target, later on, he was over powered by the police. The violent activities of the detenu and his men caused panick in the hall, the audience raised alarm and ran outside the auditorium and outside the hall also people got scared, they
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
