SUMAN THALWAR Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS-9 AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Thiru Suman Thalwar, a detenu under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug -Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), had filed W.P. No. 6445 of 1985, praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus declaring that the detention order made in Memo No. 67/BDGIS/85, dated 21.5.1985, is void and for other consequential reliefs. The said Writ petition vas heard by the Division Bench consisting M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J., and Shanmukham, J., in extenso on the several points raised in the writ petition and the learned Judges referred two questions of law for an authoritative pronouncement to a Full Bench of this Court and decided the rest of the points by means of a considered judgment, dated 25th September, 1985.

(2.) THE Full Bench of this Court consisting of Honourable Mr. M.N. Chandurkar, Chief Justice, S.A. Kader, J., and Venkataswami, J., answered the two points referred to by the Division Bench by means of its judgment Reported in : 1986 L.W. (Crl.) 221, dated 7.4.1986. After answering the questions referred to, the Full Bench had directed the Writ Petition No. 6445 of 1985 to be taken up by the earlier Division Bench for disposal. In the meanwhile the petitioner filed Crl.W.P. No. 329 of 1986 before the Supreme Court raising identical grounds which were raised in W.P. No. 6445 of 1985 and also some other grounds in addition. The Supreme Court by means of its order, dated 5th September, 1986 transmitted the Crl.W.P. No. 329 of 1986 to this Court with a direction to treat the same as a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, Crl.W.P. No. 329 of 1986 is taken on file as W.P. No. 10076 of 1986 and posted along with W.P. No. 6445 of 1985. Both the abovesaid writ petitions are posted before this Bench by orders of the Chief Justice for final disposal.

(3.) MOST of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner challenging the legality of his detention, barring the two points referred to the Full Bench, were decided by the earlier Division Bench. The two points referred to the Full Bench were also subsequently decided by the Full Bench. The Supreme Court on a consideration of the facts of the case seems to have felt that there are additional questions to be decided in Crl. W.P. No. 329 of 1986 and directed this Court to dispose of the said additional question. The scope of further enquiry is circumscribed by the direction of the Supreme Court in its order dated 5th September, 1986 in Crl. W.P. No. 329 of 1986 which reads as follows: