NAGENDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Nagendran has been detained as a goonda, under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 21.1.1994, passed by the second respondent, Commissioner of Police, Madras City, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) To answer the solitary ground urged by petitionerTs Counsel, it will be totally unnecessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order.

(3.) Mr. P. Venkatasubramaniam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to Paragraph (3) of the grounds of detention, wherein the detaining authority has stated as follows: The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, N-1 Royapuram Police Station, also placed before me, a copy of the telegram sent by one Visalakshi on 12.1.1994. I have gone through the contents of the same and the connected records. The contention that he was arrested on 3.1.1994 and kept in illegal custody in P. 3 Vysarpadi Police Station and P. 5 Mahakavi Bharathi Nagar Police Station is not correct. On the basis of this statement is the grounds of detention, it was argued that a copy of the telegram sent by Visalakshi was not furnished to the detenu, in spite of a request having been made. In conjunction with this submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to ground (in petitioners affidavit, which reads as follows: Non-furnishing of the remand order wherein I have mentioned illegal detention before the learned Magistrate. This violates Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Obviously, we have to understand that non furnishing of the remand order, had caused considerable prejudice to the detenu.