PERIYASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brother of the detenu has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition seeking for quashing the Order of detention, dated 9.1.2010, bearing C.M.P.No.01/GOONDA/C2/2010, passed by the second respondent.

(2.) On the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority citing five adverse cases in Crime No.705/2009 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 r/w Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 r/w Section 109 IPC, Mecheri Police Station; Crime No.706/2009 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 r/w Section 3(1) of TNPPD Act r/w Section 109 IPC, Mecheri Police Station; Crime No.660/2009 for the alleged offences under Section 3 of TNPPD Act, Sections 337 and 120(B) IPC, Magudanchavadi Police Station; Crime No.471/2009 for the alleged offences under Section 3 of TNPPD Act, Sections 341 and 324 IPC, Steelplant Police Station and Crime No.589/2009 for the alleged offences under Section 3 of TNPPD Act and Section 120(B) IPC, Attayampatty Police Station and the ground case in Crime No.590/2009 under Section 3 of TNPPD Act and Section 120(B) IPC, Attayampatty Police Station, and after looking into the materials available, the second respondent, the District Collector and District Magistrate, Salem district, formed an opinion that the detenu was to be termed as 'GOONDA' since his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, the Order of detention, dated 9.1.2010, was passed. The said Order is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Mr. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly relies on the following grounds while assailing the order of detention.