PHILOMENA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu and she challenges the order of detention dated 11.05.2002 passed by the first respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, detaining him, after he was identified as a "Bootlegger", since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities and on 06.05.2002, he acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and that if he is let to remain at large, he will indulge in such further activities and that therefore, there is a compelling necessity to detain him.

(2.) We do not propose to extract the entire details of the grounds of detention, since both the sides have agreed that the petition is to be considered only on the following short ground.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the representation dated 02.08.2002 sent to the Government, a mention has been made only about as to how a false case has been foisted against the detenu and that he has not committed any offence. That at no point of time, in the representation, a request was made to the Government to furnish with any documents. In such circumstances, the detenu was surprised to receive a communication rejecting the representation, mentioning that the documents which he requires had already been furnished to him. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the representation, in effect, has not been considered but on merits has been mechanically dismissed and the Government has passed an order, which runs contrary to the representation sent by the petitioner.