B RAJAMANI 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 3.10.2011, made in No. 15/BDFGISSV/2011 dated 3.10.2011, and to quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Joseph Ponraj, son of Rajamani, confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, dated 3.10.2011, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of 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 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government in G.O. (D) 122, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.7.2011 under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Joseph Ponraj, in the Central Prison, Palaymkottai.

(3.) I am aware that Thiru. R. Joseph Ponraj was arrested on 21.8.2011 in connection with the case in Thatchanallur Police Station Crime Number 467 of 2011 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, No. IV, Tirunelveli and was remanded at Central Prison, Palayamkottai on that day itself. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, IV, Tirunelveli on 30.8.2011 through video conferencing and his remand was extended upto 27.9.2011. Again he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli on 27.9.2011 through video conferencing and remand has been extended upto 11.10.2011. I am aware that he is in remand in connection with Thatchanallur Police Station Crime Number 467 of 2011. I am aware that he moved a bail petition before the District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in Cr. M.P. No. 3915 of 2011 on 20.9.2011 in connection with the case in Thatchanallur Police Station Crime Number 467 of 2011 and the same is pending for disposal. I am also aware that bail was granted in similar case to the accused Selvam alias Moogambigai Dasan, Sundar Alias Sundaram and Mahesh in Thatchanallur Police Station Crime no. 237 of 2011 under Section 302 , 201 Section 302 , 201 and 120(B) Indian Penal Code by the Honourable Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr. M.P. Nos. 2104 of 2011 and 2313 of 2011. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities in future which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Thiru. R. Joseph Ponraj is a Goonda and there is a compelling necessity to detain him 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.? 5. He had further submitted that it is clear, from the above paragraph, that the Detaining Authority was aware that the detenu had been remanded in custody, in Crime No. 467 of 2011, on the file of the Thatchanallur Police Station. Thus, the statement of the Detaining Authority that the detention order was being passed, in order to prevent the detenu from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has been made, without any materials on record. As such, it is clear that it is an ipse dixit of the Detaining Authority. It clearly shows the non-application of mind, by the Detaining Authority, while passing the detention order.