S GAYATRI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATARAJAN, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Gayathri, for the issue of writ of hibeas corpus for the production of the body of her husband Sundaram aliesi Mylapore Sundararn, who is undergoing detention at the Central prison, Madras, in consequence of an order of detention passed against him under the National Security Act by the first respondent.

(2.) ON 30th April, 1981, an order of detention Was passed against the said Sundaram by the first respondent and he was taken into custody. The grounds of detention and the documents referred to in the said grounds, were furnished to the detenue on 3rd March, 1981. The detenue submitted his representations, to the Advisory Board against the order of detention but having failed to convince the Board, the detenu-s wife has come forward with this petition.

(3.) THE several averments contained in the petitioner-s affidavit have been met by the respondents in a detailed counter-affidavit filed by them. As we will be referring in detail to portions of the averments containedin the counter-affidavit, we do not think it necessary to refer in extenso at this juncture the various statements contained in the counter-affidavit. Suffice it to say that grounds 1 and 2 are characterised as truthful occurrences and affording adequate justification for the passing of the detention order. As regards ground No. 3 it has been stated that though the recorded incident affecting maintenance of public order has been cited in the ground, mention has been made about the lawless activities of the detenu subsequent to the two earlier incidents and the gravamen of the ground has been based on the entries on records in the dessier sheet maintained for detenu. THE dessier sheet itself was not furnished to the detenue as it was considered not desirable to furnish the same in public interest. It is also stated that the acquittal of the detenu in the case referred to in the first ground was known to the first respondent before the passing of the detention order but even so, the first respondent had deemed it fit to place reliance on that ground also to pass the order of detention. Lastly, it has been stated that the impunged order has been passed in strict conformity with the provisions of the National Security Act,and such, the order is notliable to be assailed by the petitioner.