AMARAVATHI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in C.M.P.No.45/Goonda/Salem City/2015 dated 19.05.2015, whereby the detenu, by name Pandian, son of Jayakumar, aged about 30 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, 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 adverse cases [Cr.Nos.63/2015, 82/2015 and 114/2015] and also in the ground case in Cr.No.92/2015 registered by Annadanapatty Police Station and the detenu has not moved any bail applications in the said cases as on the date of the passing of the detention order. He would also contend that the detaining authority has placed reliance on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail by filing bail applications in the adverse cases and in the ground case. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the detenu has not moved any bail applications in adverse cases as well as in the ground case. When no bail application is filed, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the ground case and in the adverse cases and there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the adverse cases and in the ground case, is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, 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].