SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein who is the father of the detenu by name Kajamalai viji @ Vijay has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the correctness and validity of the detention order passed by the second respondent against the detenu under the Tamil Nadu Act 14,1982, detaining him as 'Goonda' and directing the detenu to be detained at the Central Prison, Trichirapalli, in order to preventing him from indulging in the act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) IN the grounds of detention, three adverse cases were shown against the detenu, viz., (i) Crime No. 223 of 2008, on the file of K.K.Nagar police Station, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 353, 294 (b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC (ii) Crime No. 109 of 2010, on the file of K.K.Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 147,323 and 506(i) IPC (iii) Crime No. 727 of 2010, on the file of Airport police station, for the offences under Sections 147,341,294(b), 427,323,324 IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992. The detaining authority also relied on the ground case concerned in Crime No. 361 of 2011 on the file of the K.K.Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 147,148,447,448,427, 294(b), 323,506(H) IPC and Section 3 of PPD Act. On the basis of the aforementioned cases, the detaining authority concluded that the detenu was habitually committing crimes and he is a "Goonda" and also observed that he was acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kamalesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India and Others (1995) SCC (Cr) 643 submitted that detenu sent a representation to the detaining authority on 24.7.2011 and it was received by him on 28.7.2011 within 12 days of the detention order. But the detaining authority has failed to consider the representation which violated the fundamental right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.