MARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to challenge the validity of an order of detention, dated 15th April, 1985 passed by the second respondent against the petitioner"s husband Thiru Joseph and to secure his release from detention this petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.

(2.) The petitioner"s husband, detenu Joseph, was directed to be placed under preventive detention by the second respondent by an order dated 15th April, 1985 passed under Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bottleggers, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The grounds of detention set out that the detenu had come to adverse notice in four cases, viz., (1) Crime No.2038/84 of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, St. Thomas Mount, for an offence under Sec. 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (2) Crime No. 803/85 of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, St. Thomas Mount, for an offence under Sec.4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (3) Crime No.914/85 of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, St. Thomas Mount, for an offence under Sec.4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and (4) Crime No. 1242/85 of Prohibition Enforcement Wing, St. Thomas Mount, for an offence under Sec.4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. All these cases relate to the sale of arrack mixed with a poisonous and intoxicating substance, viz,, chloral hydrate. After the detenu was apprehended on 14th March, 1985 and the case in Crime No.914/85 of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, St. Thomas Mount, was registered against him, the third respondent deemed it proper that the bottlegging activities of the detenu which were affecting the maintenance of public order should be brought to the notice of the second respondent so that an order of detention can be passed against the detenu for safeguarding the interests of the public Hence, relevant materials against the detenu were placed before the second respondent. On a consideration of the materials placed before him, the second respondent was subjectively satisfied that in order to ensure the maintenance of public order it was necessary to pass an order of detention against the detenu under Sec.3 of the Act. Consequently, he passed an order of detention and thereupon the detenu who had been enlarged on bail in the criminal case referred against him was again taken into custody and placed in jail. The grounds of detention were served on him.

(3.) A representation was made by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu to assail the order of detention. The representation was sent to the second respondent for paragraph-war remarks and after the remarks were received, the first respondent considered the representation and the remarks of the second respondent and rejected the representation and confirmed the order of detention. In the meanwhile the Advisory Board constituted by the first respondent had also considered the case of the detenu on 9th May, 1985 and gave its opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detenu being kept under detention. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this petition to seek the intervention of the Court to set aside the order of detention passed against her husband.