J. SELVARAJ Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is the son called J. Salvaraj, challenges the order passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector. Thiruvannamalai also directing the preventive detention of Tmt. Andal aged about 55 years on the ground that she is a bootlegger. There are few cases cited as adverse cases and it is suggested that her remaining free is likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order is dated 23 -4 -2001.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Shanmugavelayutham raised the first point that in this case the detaining authority has not provided the correct translations to the detenue and the detenue was misled because of the mistake in the translation. He points out paragraph 5 in the grounds, which is as follows: "6. I am aware that Tmt. Andal has been remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate. Tiruvannamalai on 18 -42001. She is a remand prisoner lodged in the special prison for woman Vellore. I am aware that, she has not filed any bail application so far. However, there is an imminent possibility of her filing bail application or more the higher Courts for bailing her out. I am also aware that in such cases, if bail is granted after a lapse of some time and there is an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and if the detenu is let to remain at large, she is likely to indulge in such further prejudicial activities in future as well, and therefore, there is compelling necessity to pass this order of detention with a view to prevent her from indulging in such prejudicial activities, in future. Matter in other language.

(3.) AGAIN the learned counsel points out that there is no imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail was considered or stated by the detaining authority. For this purpose learned counsel relies on the reported decision of the Apex Court in Amritlal & Others v. Union Government through Secretary Ministry of Finance & others1. It is seen from this case that the Apex Court while considering the earlier cases has held in para 6 as under: "6. The requirement as noticed above in Binod Singh's case (supra) that there is likelihood of the petitioners being released on bail that however is not available in the reasoning as provided by the concerned officer. The reasoning available is the 'likelihood of his moving an application for bail', which is different from 'Likelihood to be released on bail'. This reasoning, in our view, is not sufficient compliance with the requirements as laid down."