MUTHULAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

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 23.02.2011, 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.N.Mohideen Basha, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that 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. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without any subjective satisfaction and without any cogent material that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, the impugned detention order was passed and hence, the same is vitiated.

(3.) THE above finding of the detaining authority is based on mere surmises and conjectures. Admittedly, the bail applications filed by the detenu are pending and no order has been passed on the said bail applications. But, the detaining authority without any cogent material available on record has arrived at the conclusion that he will indulge in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the absence of any materials on record, on the basis of which, the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the mere ipse-dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention.