TAMILSELVI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, Vivek, branded as a 'Goonda' in Detention Order, P.D.No.17/2014 dated 01.04.2014, by the 2nd respondent/District Collector and District Magistrate, Thanjavur District, has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) The detenu has come to adverse notice of the police in two cases. The first case has been registered in Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station Crime No.319/2013, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 IPC r/w 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 @ 147, 148, 120(b), 109, 212, 341, 342, 324 and 302 IPC r/w 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the second case has been registered in Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station Crime No.383/2013, under Sections 147, 294(b), 352, 341, 324, 506(ii) and 379 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992, r/w 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 @ 147, 148, 294(b), 352, 354, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2005 and r/w 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Both the cases are under investigation. Ground case has been registered in Kumbakonam West Police Station Crime No.57/2014, under Sections 294(b), 386 and 307 IPC, in which, the detenu has been remanded. On being satisfied that the Detenu is indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority, has clamped the Detention Order, on the Detenu. At paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention, 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.