SUSEELA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. It is stated that the second respondent herein passed the detention order dated 10.3.2003 against the detenu in C4/16249/2003. Based on the said order, the son of the petitioner was detained as bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 12982.

(2.) The main point that has been emphasised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is the non application of mind by the detaining authority. In this connection, it is pointed out that the detenu was produced before the Magistrate on 26.2.2003. This fact has been referred in page 34 of the typed set. It is seen that the Inspector of police submitted a requisition letter to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chidambaram on 26.2.2003, wherein the Inspector of Police has requested the learned Magistrate for remand of the accused. In page 35 of the typed set, it is seen that the detenu was produced before the Magistrate only on 27.2.2003. In this connection, the learned counsel would state that the detaining authority has not at all applied the mind while passing the detention order. It is pointed out that the detaining authority has not received the clarification from the sponsoring authority with regard to the fate of the detenu between 26.2.2003 and 27.2.2003. It is seen that the detaining authority has not at all applied its mind before passing the detention order against the detenu. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon an unreported decision of this court (to which one of us is a party) in H.C.P.No.2213 of 2002 dated 24.4.2003 ("Ms.Parasakthi .vs.District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul and another"),wherein it has been held as follows:-

(3.) We hold that the same principles would apply to the facts of this case also. Hence following the said decision of this court cited supra, we are inclined to quash the order of detention passed by the second respondent.