KANNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, son of the detenue, who has been detained under the Tamil Nadu 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), has come forward with the present petition to quash the detaining order dated 09.03.2014 passed by the second respondent, in P.D. No. 05/2014, detaining his mother as "Bootlegger" and set her at liberty. On being satisfied that the detenue is a Bootlegger, an order of detention dated 09.03.2014, was passed by the second respondent. Detention order was served on 10.03.2014. Detenue was arrested on 23.02.2014 in the ground case. The detenu was remanded into custody on the same day in Crime No. 144 of 2014, registered by Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Thanjavur Unit, Incharge, Pattukottai. The bail application moved in the ground case was dismissed on 04.03.2014, in Crl. M.P. No. 1912 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai, in Cr. No. 144 of 2014. After dismissal of the bail application, the petitioner has come out with the present petition to quash the detention order, which declared his mother as "Bootlegger".

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the detention order has been passed mechanically based on the report given by the Inspector of Police, the sponsoring authority, the detention order has been passed without subjective satisfaction; entire copy of charge sheet was not placed before the detaining authority and the same was not furnished to the detenue; some of the documents were not readable and that the second respondent has failed to supply clean and readable copies and therefore, the detenue was not able to make effective representation; contents of translated copies of the documents and the grounds of detention are not in conformity with original documents; the detaining authority has failed to inform the detention order to the family members, as per Section 8 of the Act; the detaining authority has failed to furnish documents with regard to the ground case and similar case, by which, Articles 22(3) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India have been violated; representation dated 10.04.2014 to the first respondent was not disposed till date; the bail application filed by the detenue was dismissed and no bail application is pending as on date.

(3.) The second respondent has filed counter affidavit denying all the averments made by the petitioner. According to the second respondent, only after arriving at the subjective satisfaction, detention order was passed. The petitioner, son of the detenue was informed about the detention order and that he refused to receive the intimation. Therefore, on 11.03.2014, the order of detention was affixed on the door of the house of the detenue itself.