K MANOHARAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The cousin of the detenu Hari @ Harikrishnan is the petitioner in this habeas corpus petition, and he has challenged the order of detention passed by the second respondent in BDFGISSV No. 41/2011 dated 14.7.2011.

(2.) The detaining authority relied on one adverse case viz. Crime No. 187/2011, on the file of T-13 Kunrathur Police Station, and also the ground case in Crime No. 199/2011, on the file of T-13 Kunrathur Police Station, for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC, to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu was a Goonda as defined under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.

(3.) Though the order of detention is assailed on various grounds, the main submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu made a representation dated 20.7.2011, to the detaining authority seeking for revocation of the order of detention, and that representation was not considered by the detaining authority within the stipulated time and the procedure prescribed under law, has also not been followed and hence the order of detention is vitiated.