SUBBULAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner in HCP.No.1750 of 2007 who is the wife of the detenu Venugopal and the petitioner in HCP.No.1761 of 2007 who is the wife of Rathinam have challenged the order of the detention in G.O.NO.SR.I/990-5/2007 and G.O.NO.SR.I/990-7/2007 dated 23.112.2007 made by the first respondent and detained them under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974.

(2.) PERUSED the affidavit filed in support of the petition and counter affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State.

(3.) ADVANCING his arguments on behalf of the petitioners, learned Senior counsel made the following submissions: In the instant case, the orders under challenge came to be passed on 28.11.2007 against the detenu Venugopal and co-detenu Rathinam. According to the learned Senior counsel, the orders of detention suffer by non-application of mind. Learned Senior counsel would rely upon two statements of the detention order. First statement in the detention order of the detenue Venugopal which is found in Ground V Page 3 which reads as follows: