G PUSHPALATHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issue of a habeas corpus to produce the body of the petitioner's husband, namely, Govindan alias Choolai Govindan, before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) The first respondent passed the impugned order of detention in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Section (1) of S.3 of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) The facts leading to the impugned order have been elaborately set out in the order of detention and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat the same here. Though the order of detention has been challenged on various grounds, Mr. T.K. Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to only one point, namely, that the representation made by the detenu before the Advisory Board on 20-3-1989 was not placed before the Government before passing the order of confirmation on 10-4-1989. According to the learned counsel, a written representation was filed before the Advisory Board setting out the defence in detail and requesting for production of the personal search register and the lock-up register from the concerned police station to show that the detenu was illegally detained in the police station for a number of days before the order of detention came to be passed. The fact that such a representation was made before the Advisory Board is not in dispute now. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that those documents required by the detenu were very relevant documents to establish his case of illegal custody and therefore they ought to have been made available to the detenu to enable him to make effective representation before the Advisory Board.