NITHYA ALIAS NITHIYANANDAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of detention 2. 8. 2001 passed by the second respondent in Reference No. BDFGIS No. 77 of 2001 is questioned on the ground that there are serious infirmities and that the same has to be set aside.

(2.) FIRSTLY, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the plan (rough sketch page 35 of the paper book) the crime number is not mentioned. As far as this submission is concerned we have to point out that the land marks in that area and every other details have been correctly noted and described at the bottom of the said plan. Non-mentioning of the crime number in the said plan cannot be held that there was non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that page 2 of the paper book, particularly , right hand side top of the same is not clear and it had resulted in great prejudice to him and that he was not in a position to send an effective representation. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner since we find that the document can be read and fully understood. Merely because there is some dark portion at the right hand side top of the said document this court cannot come to the conclusion that the same had prevented the petitioner to understand the contents of the documents.