ARUMAIKILI Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 08. 06. 2006, detaining her son by name Pudumairaj as 'goonda' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ).

(2.) HEARD Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) AT the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by taking us through the detention order and the grounds of detention, submitted that there is no material for detaining the detenu as Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Elaborating the above submission, Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam pointed out that though, in paragraph No. 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the Inspector of Police examined detenu Pudumairaj and co-accused Praveen @ Easuraj, Kannan @ Kumar and Raja @ Syed and recorded their statements; those statements of the co-accused were neither placed before the Detaining Authority nor copies thereof were supplied to the detenu. According to him, the detenu is entitled to copies of all the documents relied on by the Detaining Authority.