CHANDRAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 15-10-2002, passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District at Thiruvannamalai, dubbing one Chandran, son of Kannan, as bootlegger and directing his detention under Sec.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, is in challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The detenu herein is involved in as many as four adverse cases under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, two of which have been committed in 2001 and the other two in 2002. He was also caught while selling poisonous liquor, mixed with atropine, on 30-9-2002 and it is on that basis that Crime No.485 of 2002 was registered against him under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.

(3.) The first contention of Shri Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the pre-detention representation made by the detenus wife Bogavathy has not been considered by the detaining authority and that representation has also not been referred to. (1) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, points out that that representation was rejected and, therefore, there was no question of again considering the same in the grounds or in the detention order. (2) The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is absolutely correct. The first contention is, therefore, rejected.