KARUNAIAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, by name Urundaipalanisamy @ Palanisamy, who was detained as "bootlegger" 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), by the impugned detention order dated 24. 06. 2006, challenges the same in this Petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(3.) AT the foremost, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention, submitted that though the sponsoring authority has stated that the remand period was extended from 13. 06. 2006 to 26. 06. 2006, the said order was neither placed before the detaining authority nor supplied copy of the same to the detenu. According to him, the detaining authority has very much relied on the remand extension order and after satisfying itself, has passed the impugned detention order. Failure to produce the same to the said authority and supplied copy of the same to the detenu, vitiates the detention order.