REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KAMATCHIAMMAL, W/O RAMARAJ Appellant

V/S

ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA; SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE; INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CSCID, DINDIGUL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIK V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
SUMAIYA VS. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU,FORT ST. GEORGE,CHENNAI-9 AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
FATHIMA SUDHA @ ESAKI SUDHA V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT [REFERRED]
UMMU SABEENA VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
CHELLASWAMY V. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE) [REFERRED]
JAYANARAYAN SUKUL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
NIRANJANSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
RASHID SK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
TARA CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED]
ICCHU DEVI CHORARIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
RAGHAVENDRA SINGH VS. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL KANPUR [REFERRED]
RAMA DHONDU BORADE VS. V K SARAF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [REFERRED]
MAHESH KUMAR CHAUHAN ALIAS BANTI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
K M ABDULLA KUNHI AND B L ABDUL KHADER VS. UNION OF INDIA STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
RAM SUKRYA MHATRE VS. R D TYAGI [REFERRED]
RAJAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
SOLOMON CASTRO VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
DISTRICT COLLECTOR VS. SHAIK HASAMATH BEEBI [REFERRED]
REKHA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
SHERENE VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EGMORE CHENNAI 8 [REFERRED]
D KARUPPIAH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE GREATER CHENNAI EGMORE CHENNAI [REFERRED]
RAMAMURTHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
G KALAISELVI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Anandaraj @ Aanandaraj, branded as 'Black Marketeer' in detention order in No.10/2014 (CS), dated 03.04.2014 by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, has sought for a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) The Detenu has came to the adverse notice of the police in two cases. The first adverse case has been registered in Crime No.77 of 2014 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w. 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 on the file of the Civil Supplies CID, Madurai. The second adverse case has been registered in Crime No.119/2014 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w. 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 on the file of the Civil Supplies CID, Dindigul. Both adverse cases are pending investigation, when the order of detention was passed. The order of detention was passed on the basis of the ground case alleged to have registered on 28.03.2014 on the file of the Civil Supplies CID, Dindigul in Crime No.122/2014 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w. 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 in which he has been remanded. On being satisfied that the Detenu is habitually indulging in activities, affecting maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, the Detaining Authority has clamped the Detention Order on the Detenu. At paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority has concluded as follows:

(3.) Challenging the Impugned Order, though the learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia has raised many contentions, We do not propose to go into all the grounds of challenge, since in our considered view, the point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a delay in consideration of the representation merits acceptance.

Click here to view full judgment.

KAMATCHIAMMAL, W/O RAMARAJ Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA; SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE; INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CSCID, DINDIGUL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address