N KUMARESAN Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the order dated 24.7.2002 passed by the second respondent, District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram, ordering the preventive detention of one Kasi, S/o Kutti on the ground that he is a bootlegger and that his continued liberty would hamper the public order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Swamidoss Manokaran, raises only two points assailing the correctness of the order as well as the detention. Firstly, he points out that the detention seems to have been ordered casually, even without reference to the existing facts. For this, the learned counsel takes us through the grounds of detention, and more particularly ground 5(ii), wherein the detaining authority has stated as follows:-

(3.) This order seems to have been passed on 24.07.2002, whereas according to the learned counsel the bail application was actually filed much before that. Learned counsel points out that a bail application came to be filed by the detenu on 18.7.2002, on which date itself a copy of the same was given to the Public Prosecutor and the matter was fixed on 23.7.2002, on which date it was the State which took the adjournment. It was ultimately posted on 30.7.2002 and finally on 6.8.2002. From this, the learned counsel points out that the detaining authority, as also the sponsoring authority should have been in the know of the facts and should have acted on the correct facts. The making of a statement that no bail application had been filed, would suggest that the authority concerned had not applied its mind properly.