V JAGADEESKUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the detention order dated 17.9.2009 passed against the detenu P. Vijayakumar under Act 14 of 1982 by the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-8, second Respondent herein.

(2.) In the grounds of detention, 27 ground cases are relied on against the detenu to pass the detention order under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. According to the Petitioner, originally cases were registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC, which were subsequently altered into Sections 406, 307, 506(ii) IPC, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, read with Section 328 IPC and also under Section 30 of the Arms Act, read with Section 307 IPC as well as under Sections 40, 49-B read with 51(1) Proviso of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Out of the above said 27 cases, bail had been granted in favour of the detenu in six cases by the learned Principal Sessions Court, Chennai and by this Court and in the remaining 21 cases, the detenu moved bail applications before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and all the 21 bail applications were pending at the time of passing the order of detention.

(3.) The main grounds of attack on the order of detention in the petition as well as arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner are that this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 15913 and 15914 of 2009 by order dated 24.8.2009 already prohibited the detenu from practicing Siddha and Ayurvedic Medicines and therefore there is no pressing necessity to pass the order of detention by the Detaining Authority and non-consideration of the above aspect vitiates the detention order on the ground of non-application of mind. The detenu .being a registered Medical Practitioner, registered his name with the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical Council from 7.9.1998, can effectively be prohibited from practise, either by suspending the registration or otherwise under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1970, by the competent authorities, if there is any violation in his medical practice, and non-consideration of the above aspect by the Detaining Authority vitiates the order of detention. The allegation that the detenu cheated the patients by promising cure after receiving large sums of money cannot be treated as disturbance of public order as tempo of the Society was not affected in any locality. The documents sought for by the detenu for submitting his effective representation having not been furnished, the further continuance of detention order is impermissible. The detenu having been already prevented from practise, as he has been confined in prison, there is no further need to pass the detention order to prevent his alleged activities.