VASU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions were filed by the, detenues themselves challenging the respective orders of detention passed against them by the Cornrnissioner of Police, Madras City, the second respondent herein, dated 20/12/1991 and to quash the same and to set them at liberty. The detenue in all these cases came to the adverse notice of the detaining authority as habitual criminals in view of cases referred to in the orders of detention and on the begin of the ground case. The impugned orders were passed by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers. Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) hereinafter referred to as the Act with a view to preventing the detenues from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Since all these orders of detention are passed on the same ground case and they were challenged on the same grounds, they were clubbed together and disposed of by the common order with the consent of both the parties.

(2.) Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions, Mr. P. Venkatasubramaniam challenged the orders of detention on various grounds, but confined his argument to two grounds only, viz. (i) that the second respondent detaining authority did not state in the grounds of detention on what category of the Act the detenues were branded so as to affect public order. He had simply stated the detenues as habitual originals. But there is no definition in the Act for Habitual CriminalTT, who can be detained. This clearly non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and on this ground as well thOOrders of detention are vitiated and (ii) that the second respondent did not peruse the records and formed the subjective satisfaction unnecessarily by looking at the documents Nos. 97 and 103, where in crime numbers are quoted as Cr. No. 2615 of 1991 and 2425 of 1991 and the same vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the second respondents.

(3.) We considered each ground separately. As regards the first ground is concerned, in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent detaining authority in paragraph to, it is stated that this respondent had not mentioned the category under the detenues were detained, but in the orders of detention, it has been specifically stated that the petitioners were detained under the classification Goonda. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the grounds of detention; wherein we find in the preamble, it is clearly stated that the detenues came to know as habitual criminals. The learned counsel for the petitioners also drew our attention to the orders of detention and nowhere in the orders of detention the detaining authority has characterised the detenues as TGoondas in arriving at the subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioners. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that it has not been described that the detunes came to the adverse notice or they have been dealt as Goondas, but only as habitual criminals. It is only on the basis of the grounds of detention, the detention order is drawn. From the mere fact that the order of detention contains the word GoondaT, it cannot be said that the detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction and treated the petitioners as Goondas.