RAJESWARI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Rajeswari (petitioner) is the wife of the detenu Palanisamy. The detenu, it is said is a Boot legger". Apart from the ground case, the occurrence relating to which is said to have happened on 20-11-1995, he had come to adverse notice in four other cases.

(2.) The District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem (1st Respondent) claimed upon the detenu, the impugned order of detention under the relevant provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in his proceedings C.M.P.No. 35/B.L.A./95 (C2) dated 2-11-1995. with a view to preventing him from indulging in any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.

(3.) Mr. V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel, representing M/s. K. Selvarangan, and L. Mahendran appearing for the petitioner would press into service the following points for consideration : -( 1 ) Representation dated 23-12-1995 had not at all been considered and disposed of without any unreasonable delay and such a factor greatly affected the rights of representation inhering in favour of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India ?(2) The first respondent-detaining authority took into consideration extraneous material in penning down the impugned order of detention, which is getting reflected in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention and such a factor would indicate the non-application of mind on his part in deriving the subjective satisfaction before ever he penned down the impugned order of detention.(3) Non-furnishing of a copy of the remand order, wherein the detenu is alleged to have stated that he had been taken into custody much earlier to the ground case, and tortured, greatly affected the right of representation before the Advisory Board inhering in his favour under ArticIe 22(5) of the Constitution of India and this factor if added to other factors vitiates the impugned order of the detention?