STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. KETHIYAN PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals involve identical issues. The impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1999 has its foundation on the judgment impugned in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1999. Therefore, the factual position involved in Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1999 is described.

(2.) The State of Tamil Nadu and District Magistrate and Collector, Vellore District (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court quashing the order of detention dated 29-3-1988 passed by the Detaining Authority.

(3.) A Habeas Corpus Petition was filed by the wife of Kethiyan Perumal (hereinafter described as the detenu) who was detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short the Act). The High Court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition primarily on the ground that the Detaining Authority took into consideration extraneous matters while recording the finding about unlawful activities of the detenu or that it was highly dangerous to the public order. The High Court distinguished the decision of this Court in Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (AIR 1994 SC 165) which was relied upon by the detaining authority. Primary stand of the writ petitioner (present respondent) before the High Court was that though reference was made to Forest Officers report and the same virtually provided the foundation of the detention, yet there was no mention therein that activities of the detenu has been highly dangerous to public order. The State resisted the petition on the stand that in an identical matter reference was made to the said Forest Officers report. This Court in Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmis case (supra) dealt with the matter in detail and upheld the detention. Reliance was placed on Section 5A of the Act to contend that the grounds are separable and even if one ground indicated in the order of detention fails, on the residual grounds also a detention can be maintained.