K LAKSHMI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The Petitioner has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition, seeking for the relief of quashing the impugned detention order dated 24.05.2011, slapped on her husband as "Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982)

(2.) Mr. M. Vinoth Singh Misra, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenged the impugned detention order on three grounds, viz. (i) the impugned order of detention was passed even without mentioning that there is "imminent possibility" or "real possibility" or "very likely" or "most likely" for the detenu to come out on bail and without any subjective satisfaction and without cogent material available on record, the detaining authority has arrived at the conclusion that the detenu is likely to indulge in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the impugned detention order was passed and hence, the same is vitiated, (ii) as seen from the Proforma filed by the Respondents, there is totally unexplained delay of twenty three days in considering and disposing of the representation of the detenu by the Government, which would vitiate the impugned detention order and (iii) there is non application of mind by the detaining authority, inasmuch as the detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu has not filed any bail application in any of the court, whereas the Petitioner has already filed a bail application in Cr. No. 105/2011 before the learned Principal Judge, Tuticorin in Cr.MP. No. 1177/2011 on 18.05.2011 and the same is pending.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. P. Jyothi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. It is contended that the detaining authority has observed that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and as such, the detaining authority has rightly passed the impugned detention order.