MUNISAMY Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COIMBATORE DISTRICT, COIMBATORE ; SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Cr.MP.No.55/G/2014/E1 on 04.12.2014, whereby the son of the petitioner by name Varatharaj @ Varathan, aged 39 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".

(2.) Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.K.Muthumalai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

(3.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case [Cr.No.306/2014] and in the adverse cases [Cr.Nos.145/2014, 173/2014, 175/2014, 170/2014 and 464/2014] registered by the Kinathukidavu Police Station, Chettipalayam Police Station, Aliyar Police Station and Pollachi Town East Police Station respectively and he has not moved any bail applications in the said cases as on the date of the passing of the detention order. But the detaining authority has merely stated that "the recourse to the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect to prevent him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order". He has not specifically stated that there is a "REAL POSSIBILITY" or "IMMINENT POSSIBILITY" of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case or in the adverse cases. He adds that absence of the said expression in the grounds of detention would vitiate the order of detention. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, no bail applications has been filed by the detenu in the above said cases. When no bail application is filed, then there is no real possibility that the detenu would be released on bail. If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu would likely to get bail in the ground case or in the adverse cases. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record. In the absence of such material on record, the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of the detention. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind. In support of his contention that the expression in explicit terms about the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail should be there in the order of detention and the absence would vitiate the order of detention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] , [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER, 2006 1 MadLJ(Cri) 539] ; [b] [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, 2005 1 CTC 577] and [c] [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR, 2012 7 SCC 181] .