LATHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Palanikumar, son of Ponnaiyan, aged about 30 years, against the detention order passed by the first respondent, in P.D.O.No. 21/2020, dated 02.03.2020, branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that though the detention order has been assailed on several grounds, it is liable to be set aside on the ground that there was no proper intimation of arrest of the detenu either to his family members or his relatives. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non-intimation of arrest would seriously affect the valuable rights of the detenu to make effective representation to the Authorities concerned for revocation of the detention order.

(3.) Per contra, Mr.V.Neelakandan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, submitted that the detention order has been passed by the Detaining Authority after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned detention order. Furthermore, the intimation of arrest of the detenu was given through SMS and hence, the rights of the detenu has not been affected in any manner.