MAHESWARI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu and she challenges the order of detention dated 16.07.2004, passed by the first respondent under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, detaining him, after he was identified as a Goonda, since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities on earlier occasions and that on 28.06.2004, he acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that if he is let to remain at large, he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, there is a compelling necessity to detain him under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

(2.) THE occurrence of the ground case was said to have been taken place at 4 p.m. on 28.6.2004. One Thiru. Selvam was coming by walk near Bharathiar Nagar, Alagappan Nagar, Muthupatti Main Road. At that time, the detenu came there in a Hero Honda Motor cycle, threatened the informant (Thiru. Selvam), attempted to take money from his shirt pocket and when Thiru Selvam defended, he took out a knife from his waist and pressed it and threatened the informant by shouting that if he moved, he will be murdered. It was further alleged that the detenu robbed Rs. 310 from the shirt pocket of Thiru. Selvam and he was warned that he will be murdered if he disclosed the incident to anyone. Then the detenu proceeded towards Muthupatti in the motorcycle. It is upon the statement of Thiru. Selvam, the case was registered in Cr.No. 878 of 2004, under Section 397, IPC by the Station House Officer of B -8, Subramaniapuram (Crime) Police Station. During the narration of the above event, it was also mentioned that since there was no one present there, Thiru. Selvam was unable to seek anyone's help.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no averment by the Detaining Authority in the detention order to arrive at the above conclusion that the detenu acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. According to him, there might have been prejudice to the maintenance of law and order, which is quite different from prejudicial activity to the maintenance of public order. The learned counsel further submitted that for clamping detention order against a detenu, there must be subjective satisfaction on the part of the Detaining Authority that the detenu acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and it is not sufficient to show prejudicial activities against the maintenance of law and order.