(1.) The petitioner, who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982, read with G.O.Ms. No. 159, Prohibition and Excise Department, dated 18.07.1993 issued under sub-section 92) of Section 3 of the said Act, has moved this Court seeking interference in his detention under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the grounds of detention, as detailed in P.D. No. 24/93 dated 16.8.1993 show that he has been convicted in the past for selling contraband attack and is being prosecuted for indulging either in possession of illicit arrack or in tracing with the same. In the said grounds, however, it is acknowledged as follows:
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the detention order on two grounds. She has submitted that the detaining authority has acted in a mechanical manner and has not applied his mind to the actual requirement of any order of detention of the petitioner on the grounds of his being likely to indulge in further activities as a boot-legger. She also for the said purpose has pointed out that the detaining authority has stated that the petitioner has been in remand and was being proceeded under normal law Yet he has, as quoted above, said: If he is let remain at large, he will indulge in further activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, public health and life. It is indeed, according to her, a case in which the detaining authority was not sure whether the petitioner was being detained for his being a bootlegger and for indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and life or for preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In any case, according to htr, if the petitioner has not been in custody, and at large, if would have been different. It would have also been a different case if the detaining authority had been conscious of the fact whether the petitioner was likely to be released on bail and/or was likely to indulge in activities, which would warrant detention, soon after he was released on bail. The second ground of attack is that the chemical examiners opinion is one which has not confirmed the presence of such quantity of baldheaded on which the Assistant Surgeon could have recorded, as above, that consumption of the alleged arrack sold by the petitioner was likely to cause death of a person.
(3.) We do not think any examination of the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant case is necessary. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has, however, not been able to give to us any satisfactory answer why in respect of a person, who has been detained and kept in custody in connection with the alleged substantive offence, the. Detaining authority though that he was at large and thus observed: If he is let remain at large, he will indulge in further activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, public health and life. We may record here that it is one thing to suggest that hazard to public life and health will, as a consequence, cause disturbance to public order; and another to say that someone is sought to be detained because he is likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The law in this behalf has itself made a distinction. We do not, however, need to dilate into this aspect of the case fun her. In our opinion, the detaining authority has sufficiently demonstrated that he has not applied his mind to the grounds while ordering detention of the petitioner.