PADMAVATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detention order dated 08.04.2003 clamped upon the detenu Vadivu @ Sekar @ Military Sekar, branding him as a Goonda, is under challenge before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would raise the following three grounds, while assailing the impugned order. (i) The representation sent on behalf of the detenu was received by the authorities on 29.04.2003 and ultimately it was rejected only on 14.05.2003. As such, there is undue delay in considering the representation. (ii) Though there are two adverse cases against the detenu apart from the ground case, the detaining authority had not taken into consideration the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the two adverse cases while the detenu is, in fact, in remand in respect of those adverse cases, but had only considered the imminent possibility in respect of the ground case, which is one for the offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC. The opinion about the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail expressed by the detaining authority, is not factually correct. If the pendency of the second adverse case, which pertains to a serious offence had been considered, the detaining authority would have come to the conclusion that there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. So, this non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority would vitiate the detention order. (iii) There is no material to show that public order was in any way disturbed and the alleged incident is one, which would at best create law and order problem and as such, the requirements of the definition of 'public order' contained in Section 2 are not satisfied. On this ground also, the detention order is vitiated.

(3.) We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well.