KOUSALYA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu challenging the order of preventive detention of the detenu dated 29.7.2006. The detention is on the ground that the detenu is a Goonda within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Prevention and Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following contentions :- (1) The petitioner had sent a representation dated 14.8.2006 and such representation has not been disposed of expeditiously and moreover the result of the representation has not been made known to the detenu. (2) The occurrence relating to ground case is alleged to have been taken place at 8.30 am. on 9.7.2006 and the FIR was registered at 10.00 am. However, in the report relating to Observation Mahazar, which took place at 9.30 a.m, Crime Number has been indicated and, therefore, the detaining authority has not applied his mind to this discrepancy. (3) Intimation relating to the date of holding of the Advisory Board -... was not served on the detenu in advance and thus he could not muster the assistance of his friend/relative during personal hearing. On this ground of denial of reasonable opportunity the impugned order of detention is vitiated-.

(3.) APART from the above, the other contention raised by the petitioner that sufficient opportunity was not given to the detenu to be represented through a friend or relative before the Advisory Board is also worthy of acceptance. A specific ground is raised by the petitioner in paragraph (e) of the affidavit and the relevant portion of such contention has been extracted earlier. As already indicated, no counter has been filed by the State Government. However, Respondent No.2, the detaining authority, in the counter averred as follows :- "10. Regarding the contention in Grounds-e of the affidavit, it is submitted that this respondent adopt the submissions of the first respondent with regard to the service of intimation regarding personal hearing of the detenu by the Advisory Board since the same was attended by the first respondent office."