KALIAMMAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu by name Venu, challenges the impugned detention order dated 13.04.2005, branding the detenu as'Bootlegger'as contemplated under 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).

(2.) AFTER taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:- (a) There is improper translation particularly paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention. (b) Even in the reply to the representation of the detenu made prior to the detention order, the Detaining Authority has conveyed his decision to detain the detenu as Bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, hence, he predetermined to pass the detention order against the detenu. (c) Though a letter was sent by the Government agreeing to supply certain documents to the detenu, the same were not supplied. (d) Inasmuch as the arrest memo contains the Crime Number even before registration of the FIR, in the absence of proper explanation, the detention order is vitiated. (e) There is variation with regard to the date of occurrence of the ground case both in the English and Tamil version. (f) There is delay in disposal of the representation made by the detenu.

(3.) COMING to the second contention, it is brought to our notice that in the reply (dated 07.04.2005) to the pre-detention representation, the District Magistrate has informed that steps have been taken to detain the detenu under the Preventive Detention Act. By pointing out the same, the counsel submitted that the said information shows the pre-determination on the part of the Detaining Authority. In this regard, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that the Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit as well as required documents even on 30.03.2005, praying the Detaining Authority for taking appropriate steps under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. A perusal of the contents of the affidavit dated 30.03.2005 shows that he not only referred to various aspects but also enclosed the required documents for taking action under Act 14 of 1982. In such circumstances, the observation made in the letter-dated 07.04.2005 by the District Magistrate, who is none else than the Detaining Authority, cannot be faulted with.