MUTHULAKSHMI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned orders of detention dated 01. 12. 2005, detaining one Mohanram and Senthil as 'goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, are challenged in these Habeas Corpus Petitions by their respective mothers.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) MR. V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the foremost, submitted that though the detention order passed in respect of a co-accused was revoked on the advice of the Advisory Board, dated 13. 01. 2006, the said document/advice, being vital one, has not been placed before the Government when confirmation order was passed on 18. 01. 2006. He further submitted that since the detention orders have been passed on the basis of the very same ground case occurrence, the suggestion of the Advisory Board to revoke the detention order passed against a co-accused will have a bearing on the detenus in these cases, hence, the said suggestion/advice ought to have been placed before the Government. He also claimed that had it been placed before the Government, there would have been every possibility of passing similar orders and not confirming the orders passed by the Detaining Authority.