SEENIAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 25.8.2011, made in C.M.P.No. 06/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Andal @ Jeyachandran, Son of Lingappa Reddiar, aged about 47 years, confined in the Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

(2.) The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, dated 25.8.2011, under Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No. 124, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, in his proceedings C.M.P. No. 06/2011, dated 25.8.2011, directing the detention of the detenu, namely, Andal @ Jeyachandran, son of Lingappa Reddiar, in the Central Prison, Madurai, terming him as a "Goonda".

(3.) Even though various grounds had been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed emphasis on the grounds, mentioned hereunder, while stating that the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority is bad in the eye of law. He had submitted that there was clear non-application of mind, on the part of the Detaining Authority, while passing the detention order against the detenu.