LAWS(MAD)-2000-3-140

BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT., MADRAS

Decided On March 10, 2000
BALASUBRAMANIAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT., MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on either side. The affidavit of the sponsoring authority shows that the detenu had come to adverse notice in six cases. The affidavit also further discloses that the necessary documents relating to this case were placed before the detaining authority. However the detaining authority in the grounds of detention, had referred to only about the adverse case namely, S.T.O.R. No. 17/98 dated 11.12.98. The other case is dated 16.03.99. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority had relied upon the records relating to all the six cases but had given copies of documents in only one adverse case and this vitiates the order of detention. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) In sub-para 2 of paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated as follows: