MANICKAMMAL W/O PANDU, DHARMAPURI Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI AND THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DHARMAPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife of the detenu is the petitioner herein. The legality of detention order passed by the Detaining Authority dated 11.7.2001 in S.C.No.46 of 2001 has been questioned in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the sponsoring authority after sending the documents along with the affidavit sent the remand extension order along with the additional affidavit, but however the said additional affidavit has not been attested. The learned counsel contended that the unattested additional affidavit cannot be looked into for any purpose and in such event, the position would be that the sponsoring authority forwarded a document without a covering letter or an affidavit. The further submission of the counsel is that this court has repeatedly held that whenever the documents are sent by the sponsoring authority, it must be accompanied by a covering letter or an affidavit and when that being so, the detention order has to fail on the ground of non -application of mind.