RATINAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, father of the detenu, filed this habeas corpus petition against the order dated 17-3-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, chennai, directing the preventive detention of one Muthukumar alias Kumar, son of alaguvel, branding him as a Goonda under section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and video Pirates Act, 1982.

(2.) ALLEGING that the detenu is habitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as such he is a Goonda as contemplated under Section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu act 14 of 1982, the Commissioner of Police, the second respondent herein passed the impugned detention order dated 17-3-2005. The detaining authority, cited five adverse cases in addition to the ground case in Cr no. 488 of 2005 on the file of JS thiruvanmiyur Police Station under Sections 380, 341, 336, 392 and 506 (2), IPC for branding the detenu as a Goonda.

(3.) THOUGH the petitioner challenges the order of detention on several grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued only one point assailing the correctness of the order as well as the detention. Learned counsel submitted that the order of detention seems to have been passed casually, even without reference to the existing facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner takes us through the grounds of detention and more particularly to paragraph 4, wherein the detaining authority has stated; as follows :