PAUL PANDI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). It is stated in the grounds of detention that he has been involved in Sivakasi East P. S. Cr. No. 288 of 1990 under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in which case he was arrested on 27-6-1990, sent for remand and later released on bail on 25-7-1990. This case related to an occurrence dated 20-6-1990 committed at about 20.00 hours at Pitchandi Street at Sivakasi in which the petitioner along with 21 others formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and caused a stab injury to one Pandiyarajan on the back of his left with a broken soda bottle, it is said, on account of previous enmity. In yet another case, Sivakasi Town P. S. Cr. No. 406 of 1990, he was arrested on 27-6-1990 and released on bail on 18-7-1990. This was in connection with an occurrence dated 24-6-1990 at about 05.00 hours at Pudhu Road, Sivakasi in which occurrence, the petitioner allegedly trespassed into the dais and severed the head of a statute of Dr. Ambedkar with respect to which one S. P. Raj, State President, Scheduled Caste Liberation Movement, lodged a complaint with the police for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 427 and 124-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of Prevention of Insult to National Leaders' Honour Act, 1971. Soon thereafter, it seems, on 28-8-1990, the petitioner was found involved in another occurrence giving rise to Sivakasi East P. S. Cr. No. 445 of 1990, in which the petitioner was accused of pelting stones on the house of one Ramar and causing damage to the tiles worth about Rs. 50/- as well as threatening Ramar with dire consequences. The occurrence in this case allegedly took place on 28-8-1990 at 20.00 hours at Pudhu Street, Sivakasi. The petitioner was arrested on 1-9-1990 and sent for remand, but later released on bail on 5-9-1990. This offence, it is said, was also committed by the petitioner on account of previous enmity.

(2.) The case, however, which has been described as the ground case, has been registered on a report by one Karuppiah of Pudhu Street, Sivakasi. Karuppiah belongs to Parayar Community and he is a member of Dr. Ambedkar Liberation Movement. Since on 24-6-1990 at about 5.00 hours (Sivakasi East P. S. Cr. No. 456.90 the petitioner has caused damage to the statute of Dr. Ambedkar, it is said, the above incident annoyed the members of the Dr. Ambedkar Liberation Movement particularly Karuppiah. On 1-9-1990 at about 12.00 hours, Karuppiah happened to see the petitioner at Rathina Vilas Bus Stop in Sivakasi. He confronted the petitioner and asked him: (Matter in vernacular omitted). and tried to rab him. It is said, thereupon, the petitioner immediately brandished a soory knife and shouted, (Matter in vernacular omitted). and threatened Karuppiah. This made Karuppiah hesitant. The petitioner then took up a soda bottle from a nearly shop and threw it at Karuppiah. As Karuppiah stepped aside, the said bottle broke into pieces and spread out on the road. In the ground case, it is thereafter said,

(3.) It is well settled that undeterred by any description, every fact leading to the conclusion that a certain person is a goonda and that his acts as goonda affect adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order is a ground of detention. The facts aforementioned show that the petitioner committed offences in Sivakasi East P. S. Cr. No. 288 of 1990 and Sivakasi East P. S. Cr. No. 445 of 1990 to assault one Pandiarajan causing a stab injury on the back of his left leg with a broken soda bottle and damage to the tiles of the house of one Ramar by pelting stones due to previous enmity. These two cases shall not in any manner show that the petitioner is engaged in activities prejudicial to public order. Public order now has been so well explained by a series of judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court, that we need not reiterate the principles applied to distinguish between disturbances pertaining to public order and law and order. The two instances that is to say the instances in Sivakasi East Cr. No. 288/90 and Sivakasi East Cr. No. 445/90 are at best acts of vandalism affecting the individual victims, Pandiarajan and Ramar respectively.