VELUSWAMY ALIAS VELAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE strongly feel that there must be some introspection by the State Government when they want to enforce preventive law. Preventive orders cannot be passed as though it is a mere ritual akin to something of a game played in the playground. Detenu herein is a goonda. The object of preventively detaining him is to protect public order. If that is the sole object, we are unable to understand why laxity is exhibited by the State government in disposing of the representation of the detenu. Is it the attitude of the State Government that it will be sufficient if some of these persons are detained for a short period, knowing fully well that because of the infirmities created by them, the detenus are bound to succeed before Court" A casual passing of preventive orders atleast with the probable knowledge that they are bound to be set aside can only exhibit a mockery of application of preventive law. The public at large are bound to scorn and frown at the way in which preventive orders are passed purely with a view to have them ultimately struck down. Everyday, we are dealing with dozens of preventive cases of which atleast ninety per cent of them get quashed purely on account of the indifference and recklessness exhibited either by the State Government or its authorities. Inspite of our observations in a few cases, situation does not appear to have improved. On the contrary, we find more and more inaction. Authorities either in Collectorates or in the State Secretariat run a race each vying with each other to commit more and more of blunders. It looks as though both are the winners while the public are the sufferers.

(2.) NOW, let us turn to facts in this habeas corpus petition. Petitioner Velusamy alias Velan has been detained as a goonda in pursuance of an order dated 23. 3. 1993 passed by the Commissioner of Police, coimbatore City, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 3 (1) of Tamil nadu Act 14 of 1982 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention indicate that the detenu had come to adverse notice atleast on six earlier occasions,during the period ranging between 3. 4. 1990 and 5. 3. 1993. It is under such a heritage, the detenu found himself involved in the ground occurrence on 12. 3. 1993 at or about 7. 00 p. m. That the ground occurrence certainly relates to a public problem cannot be disputed. Still, we are unable to understand as to how the State Government had allowed the representation of the detenu to be left unattended for over a month and a half.