PADMAVATHY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, GREATER CHENNAI, EGMORE, CHENNAI AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The mother of the detenu is the petitioner. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of detention dated 23.10.2001 passed by the first respondent herein, directing the detention of the petitioner's son by name Market Murali alias Murali under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) The only ground urged by Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order of detention is vitiated by non-application of mind since the detaining authority in the grounds of detention in paragraph 4 has stated that he was aware that the detenu is in remand in E.2 Royapettah Police Station Crime No.1359/2001, which is the second adverse case referred in the said grounds of detention. In the absence of any material before the detaining authority to establish the factual remand of the detenu so far as the ground case is concerned, the detaining authority is not aware that the detenu is in remand in respect of the ground case and the same would amount to non-application of mind.

(3.) We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as to how the non-placement of the materials before the detaining authority to establish the remand of the detenu in respect of the ground case would vitiate the impugned order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind.