SIVAGAMA SUNDARI Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 12.09.2013 made in Memo No. 980/BDFGISSV/2013 passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a 'Goonda' and detained under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with the order issued by the Government in G.O. (D) No. 120, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2013 under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act, 1982. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_530_TLMAD0_2014_1.html</FRM>

(2.) It is seen that the detenu was arrested on 07.09.2013 and is in remand. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court by way of this Habeas Corpus Petition.

(3.) The main thrust of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is variation in the translation of vital information, which would deprive the detenu from making an effective representation for redressal of his grievance. Learned counsel would point out that there is variation in the translation of the Arrest Report as could be found in pages 177 and 179 of the booklet, as regards the details pertaining to remand. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law.