MANI @ BALATHANDAYUTHAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ of habeas corpus is filed by the petitioner challenging the legality of the order of detention passed by the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary. Prohibition and Excise department, Madras in detention order No. 94/85 dated 10th July, 1985, on the ground that the petitioner, as a goonda, has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order warranting detention under Tamil Nadu Act 15 of 1982.

(2.) IN the order of detention, eight cases in which the petitioner was previously convicted are mentioned as cases in which the petitioner has come for adverse notice. The ground case which forms the basis for subjective satisfaction of the Detaining authority is the one relating to the incident that happened on 30th June, 1985. On 30th June, 1985, one Jamaluddin, a businessman belonging to Madras and doing business in pillow covers, came to Sowcarpet to do business. After attending to his work, he was returning through Mint Street towards Central Station bus stop, having a brown colour rexine bag in his hand. The bag contained an ever silver tiffin box, cash of Rs. 11.85 and a slip containing his address. On the way, the petitioner, acting as a goonda, suddenly snatched the rexine bag and ran towards Vengu Chetty Jane. Jamaluddin chased the petitioner, shouting for help. The petitioner took a brick from the bricks heaped for construction in Vengu Chetti Jane and threatened Jamaluddin asking him to run bark. The petitioner threw the brick on Jamaluddin, who avoided it by moving aside. The brick fell down on the road and broke into pieces. The petitioner thereby created terror and panic among the public who had gathered on the scene. He took up a brick again and threatened the passers -by, asking them to run away. The general public ran out of fear of danger. The petitioner reached Vengu Chetti Street Jamaluddin again tried to chase the petitioner. On reaching Isaac Street the police party caught the petitioner Jamaluddin gave a complaint and a case was registered in Crime No 707 of 1985 under Ss.309, 336 and 506 (II), I.P.C. The Detaining Authority opined that recourse to ordinary criminal law is not sufficient in this case and the detention of the petitioner is necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) IN so far as the first ground is concerned, a perusal of the order of detention shows that eight convictions set out in the order of detention had been mentioned as cases in which the petitioner has come for adverse notice. As laid down by a Bench of this Court in Daniel v. State of Tamil Nadu and another1, 52 consists of two parts, the second part leading to the conclusion whether the detenu is a 'goonda' and the first part relating to the question whether the petitioner had acted in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority will have to first decide whether the petitioner is a 'goonda' and, for that purpose had taken into consideration the previous eight convictions which are repetitive offences committed by the petitioner. From the order of detention it is seen that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is only in respect of the ground case, viz. the one stated above and the eight cases were only mentioned as cases in which the petitioner has come for adverse notice. In other words, the previous convictions have been taken into consideration only to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a 'soonda' to whom the provisions of the Act are applicable. Under the circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner that the above eight cases in which the petitioner was convicted have included the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not correct. Hence, the first contusion will have to be negatived.