ARUNACHALAM Vs. SECRETARY, STATE OF TAMIL NADU, HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No.2272/BCDFGISSV/2014 dated 29.12.2014, whereby the detenu/the friend of the petitioner herein, viz., Clinton Prabhu, son of Kaliyamurthy, aged about 23 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the 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.R.Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non -supply of copy of the bail application in the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.M.Maharaja, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. However, he submitted that the copy of the bail application in the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu.