DURAI ALIAS PULLATHACHI DURAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, MADRAS-9 AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to cause the production of a detenu by name Durai before this Court and for his being set at liberty after quashing the order of detention passed against him by the second Respondent under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, hereinafter referred to as the Act). On notice being issued, the second Respondent and the first Respondent have filed counter -affidavits, controverting the grounds set out in the Petitioner's affidavit to assail the order of detention.

(2.) THE impugned order of detention came to be passed by the second Respondent on 24th September, 1984. The order was served on the detenu who was already in remand pursuant to his arrest in a case registered as Crime No. 1292 of 1984 of Chetput Police station under Ss. 323, 379 and 506 (second part), I.P.C. The detenu was furnished the grounds of detention and was also informed therein of his right to make a representation to Government and also of his right to be heard in person by the Advisory Board. The detention order was approved by the Government on 5th October, 1984. The detenu's case was referred to the Advisory Board, on 1st October, 1984 on 2nd November, 1984 the Advisory Board, after perusing the grounds of detention and connected records and after hearing the detenu, gave its report that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. The Government considered the report of the Advisory Board and the relevant materials including the grounds of detention and reached the conclusion that the detention order deserved to be confirmed and the detenu should be kept in preventive custody for a period of twelve months from the date of detention. Accordingly, it passed an order of confirmation dated 14th November, 1984 and it was served on the detenu on 22nd November, 1984. Subsequently, the detenu sent an undated representation and it was received by the Government on 18th December, 1984, i.e., long after the Advisory Board reviewed the case of the detenu on 2nd November, 1984. The Government called for parawar remarks on 19th December, 1984 on the representation sent by the detenu. The parawar remarks of the second Respondent were received on 26th December, 1984. The Government examined the representation as well as the parawar remarks and on 6th January, 1985, the Government passed orders of rejection of the representation. The said order was issued on 7th January, 1985 and it was served on the detenu on 8th January, 1985. Thereafter, the detenu has filed this petition.

(3.) WHEN those materials were brought to the notice of the second Respondent, he felt that the act of the detenu on the day in question had affected the maintenance of public order to cognizable level and as such, an order of detention should be passed against the detenu under the Act and that recourse to mere prosecution under the normal criminal law to deal with the offence committed by the detenu would not prove to be an adequate check on him for effectively preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.