VENKATESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition is filed by one M. Venkatesan, son of the detenu, T. Meganatnan, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus and direct the detenu detained in Central Prison, Vellore, as per the orders of the second respondent in R.C.C. 3 D.O. 41/9 1 dated 19.11.1991 to be produced before this Court and set the detenu at liberty.

(2.) The detenu came to the adverse notice as a habitual Forest offender in view of four adverse cases referred to in the preamble of the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground case. The impugned order of detention was passed by the second respondent - District Magistrate and Collector of North Arcot Ambedkar District at Vellore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Forest Offenders, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) The facts which led to the passing of the abovesaid detention order have been set out in detail in the grounds of detention and it has been served on the detenu. Hence we do not propose to reiterate the same especially in view of the limited plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though various grounds are taken in the offidavit of the petitioner the learned counsel Mr. T.V. Bakthavatsalam, challenged the impugned order on ground (d) wherein it is contended that the several grounds and reasons alleged by the detaining authority are extraneous and not relevant to the papers and documents furnished to the detenu,. The extraneous reasons and arguments advanced in the detention are illogical, unreasonable, exaggerated and untenable. In fact in paragraph 4 of the wounds of detention, it is stated that by selectively removing the best Sandalwood trees, the bat population is drastically reduced which in turn increases the pest population posing danger to the food web". This statement is extraneous and no material is furnished to the detenu. Even the definition of Forest Offender in Act 14 of 1982 does not satisfy in the case of detenu.