ESBEE ALIAS BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF T.N.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas corpus quashing the order of detention dated 12.11.1990 passed against him and set him at liberty. The impunged order was passed by the District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli (second respondent) in exercise of the powers conferred 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 No. 14 of 1982) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu came to the adverse notice as Goonda on the basis of four cases referred to in the preamble of the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case. The facts of the said four cases and the ground case which led to the passing of the impunged order need not be reiterated herein in view of the fact that the impunged order has been served on the detenu and in view of the limited scope of this Writ Petition. Though the impunged order was challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on various grounds Mr. Shanmughavelayutham, learned counsel confined his argument only on one ground viz. ground No. (b) He would contend that while passing the impunged order, the detaining authority has taken into consideration all the cases mentioned in the earlier detention order and that if the extraneous considerations were not taken into consideration, the detaining authority would not have passed the detention order at all. It was pointed out that the earlier detention order was quashed by this Court. According to him, the extraneous considerations in passing the present detention order, which were the basis for passing the earlier detention order, will vitiate the order of detention. It is to be noted that no counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instances referred to in the preamble of the grounds of detention for arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the detenu as Goonda were already quoted as instances in the previous order of detention passed against the detenu which was quashed by this court. Though no counter was filed, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that instance No.1 referred to in the present grounds of detention, namely, the case in Crime No. 63 of 1989 of Tiruchy Fort Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 506(ii) I.P.C. in respect of the occurrence on 17.1.1989, was the one which was the subject matter of the earlier order of detention for dubbing the petitioner as Goonda. The said incident was in respect of the occurrence on 17.1.1989 at 21 hours near the temple at Bandhakana Street during a quarrel over the payment of debt of Rs. 25/ - due to one Babu by one Esbee alias Balakrishnan (detenu), the detenu and his two associates joined together and wrongfully confined Babu and one Sait and caused simple and grievous injuries on them by beating them with stick and hands and caused intimidation by threatening them with death if they approach the police. On the basis of the complaint given by Babu, a case was registered under various sections referred to above. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shanmughavelayutham drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ramesh v. State of Gujarat1 where it was held that the fresh order of detention is liable to be quashed, if it was passed on the basic materials constituting subjective satisfaction in the earlier order of detention, which was quashed by the High Court, considered along with other materials by detaining authority in drawing subjective satisfaction for passing the fresh order of detention and not merely for showing the antecedents of the detenu. In that case, the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. NL Kalna2 was followed. The said decision was also affirmed in the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Ahmedhussain Shaikhhussain v. Commissioner of Police3, Applying the ratio in the said cases to the facts of this case and in view of the admitted fact that instance No.1 has already been referred to as one in the earlier detention order for arriving at subjectives satisfaction, which was quashed by this court, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there was extraneous consideration in passing the present detention order and on that ground alone, the impunged order is liable to be quashed.

(2.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impunged order of detention is hereby quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forth -with unless he is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.