M VENDA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The order of preventive detention passed under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is being challenged. Though several contentions had been forcibly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as in our opinion, the contentions relating to non-consideration of the pre detention representation by the Advisory Board or by the State Government has vitiated the order of detention. It is not disputed that before the order of detention was passed on 7.10.2003, the representation had been made on 28.4.2003. In fact, the said representation had been rejected by the Detaining Authority. The contention of the petitioner is to the effect that such representation should have also been placed before the Advisory Board and also should have been considered by the State Government.

(3.) In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment reported in 1999(II) CTC 490 (T.M. SYED ALI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND FIVE OTHERS). On going through the aforesaid judgment, we find that this is applicable to the present case. It is apparent in the present case, the representation made on behalf of the detenu prior to the order of detention though considered by the Detaining Authority himself was not placed either before the Advisory Board or before the State Government. Such non consideration by the Advisory Board or the State Government has the effect of vitiating the order of pre detention.