VIJAYARATNAM SIVANESAN Vs. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the Petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the 2nd Respondent - Tribunal rejecting the petition filed by the Petitioner under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

(2.) The Petitioner's case, inter alia, as set out in the writ petition is that the Petitioner Vijayaratnam Sivanesan joined the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (in short 'LTTE') in November 1983 and worked as Video Cameraman. He was arrested by the Tamil Nadu police in Madras in 1988 along with one Mr. Sathasivam Krishnakumar @ Kiddu and 80 others. After the said arrest, the Petitioner was transferred to the Indian Army camp at Point Pedro in Sri Lanka. The Petitioner was kept there for three months, and thereafter, he was transferred to another Indian Army Camp at Kankesanthurai. It is stated by the Petitioner that after he was transferred to Indian Army Camp he was released by the Indian Army on 5th March, 1990, and since, he was released he left the LTTE in 9th March, 1990. In the year 2010, the first Respondent ' Union of India issued a notification dated 17th May, 2010 under Section 3(1) and proviso to Section 3(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') declaring LTTE as an unlawful association. The Petitioner through his alleged Power of Attorney Holder Kalaiarasu, S/o.K.A. Ramasamy filed a petition under Section 4(3) of the Act before the Tribunal for cancellation of declaration made in the notification dated 17th May, 2010. The Petitioner also filed petitions under Section 5 of the Act for the supply of copies of all the documents produced before the Tribunal during the hearing and also summoning the witnesses. The Tribunal rejected both the petitions by its impugned order dated 28.10.2010. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. M. Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the writ Petitioner assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not considering the application and for not giving full hearing on the ground of paucity of time. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal further committed grave error of law in questioning the genuineness of the Power of Attorney on the basis of which the petitions were filed before the Tribunal. He submitted that the Tribunal further misdirected itself in saying that the affidavit was not properly filed.