NITHIYANANDAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, Senthil @ Senthilkumar, son of Murugesan, who was incarcerated by order dated 6. 1. 2007 of the second respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of 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) branding him as Goonda, has preferred this writ petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 6. 1. 2007 in his Office Ref. No. S. C. 53/2006 against the petitioner's brother, Senthil @ Senthilkumar, son of Murugesan, now confined at Central Prison, Salem, Salem District, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

(2.) THE order of detention dated 6. 1. 2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 10. 12. 2006 at about 9. 00 a. m. , on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Mohan before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanthikuppam Police Station. According to the complainant, who was running a beeda stall at Kuruvinaiyanapalli, on 10. 12. 2006 at about 9. 00 a. m. , while he was engaged in business, two persons came to his shop, drank cool drinks and consumed cigarette and jartha. When the complainant asked the two persons to pay the amount towards the purchases made by them, one among them threatened the complainant by taking a knife from the hip side and another person broke the glass bottles kept at his shop. On seeing this the public waiting for bus ran helter shelter for their safety. Enquiry revealed that the persons were the detenu herein and one Saravanan. The second respondent, taking note of this case as a ground case and finding that there are 15 adverse cases pending against the detenu for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 394 IPC, having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda.

(3.) SINCE Mr. E. Kannadasan, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention dated 6. 1. 2007 mainly on the ground of delay in considering the representation dated 15. 2. 2007 made on behalf of the detenu, we do not propose to go into the other aspects of the case.