RAVI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was detained as "goonda" under Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 21. 1. 2005, challenges the same in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner at the foremost submitted that the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind since there is discrepancy in mentioning the date of remand. In the light of the said contention, we verified the remand report (Tamil version) which finds place at pages 97, 98 and 99 of the Paper Book which shows that the detenu was arrested on 22. 12. 2004. This has been correctly stated in the remand report. However in page 99 it has been wrongly mentioned as 9. 12. 2004 and a request was made for remanding him for a period of 15 days. A perusal of those details show that the reference made at page 99 of the Paper Book is only a typographical error on the part of the Sponsoring Authority. We are satisfied that the same cannot be attributed to the Detaining Authority who is the competent authority in passing the detention order. We are satisfied that the mistake in the report of the Sponsoring Authority has not affected the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority.

(3.) COMING to the second contention that in the absence of "compelling necessity", the Detaining Authority is not justified in passing the impugned order, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that taking note of the relevant materials, the Detaining Authority has rightly passed the impugned order of detention. A perusal of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Grounds of Detention clearly show that the Detaining Authority has possessed required materials and on satisfying himself that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, passed the order of detention. On perusal of those details in Paragraphs 3 and 4, we are of the view that there is no substance in the claim made by the counsel for the petitioner.