B NAGARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the order of the second respondent dated 30.11.2007 whereby the petitioner was termed as a Goonda and an order of detention under Act 14 of 1982 was made.

(2.) AFFIDAVIT filed in support of the petition is perused and also the order under challenge is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2003(1) CTC 382) in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA 2 DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS would submit that before invoking the provisions of the Prevention of Detention Act, as one in the case on hand, the detaining authority should have satisfied that the detenu has committed acts which were affected adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. In the instant case, all the cases have registered as to robbery and there is no question of creation of any scare. Hence there is no necessity for passing the order under challenge and it has got to be set aside.