A SAROJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is the mother of the detenu by name Kumar @ Funk Kumar, challenges the detention order dated 11. 03. 2005, detaining her son as a goonda under sub-section (1) of section 3 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 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, though raised several points challenging the order of detention, at the foremost projected that inasmuch as the detaining authority has not considered pre-detention representation of the petitioner (mother of the detenu) dated 04. 03. 2005 and not reflected in the detention order with reference to the same, the ultimate detention order is liable to be quashed.

(3.) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the earlier decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of T. M. Syed Ali and another. . vs. . State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 1999 (II) CTC 490 and Kali. . vs. . State rep. by Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, etc. and another reported in 2002-I- L. W. (Crl.) 401.