KANTHAIAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the detenu himself. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in M.H.S Confdl No. 93/2017 dated 05.09.2017. The said order is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in an adverse case registered against the detenu in Crime No.231 of 2014, bail was already granted to the detenu by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Cr.M.P.Nos.3015 and 3016 of 2014 on 02.07.2014, but whereas the detaining authority, in the detention order has stated that there is a real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in the said crime number and therefore, it is clear that there is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 2. 1. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned detention order is that the affidavit filed by the sponsoring authority was attested by the detaining authority himself on the date of passing the detention order. In this regard, drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit submitted by the Sponsoring Authority to the Detaining Authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrated that the Detaining Authority attested the affidavit filed by the sponsoring authority and passed the detention order on 05.09.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the attestation made by the Detaining Authority in the affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority would show the predetermination of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. 2. 2. In support of his contention that on earlier occasion, the order passed by the detaining authority with predetermined mind was quashed by this Court, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Muthukumar @ Vellaian, v. The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009] reported in (2017) 2 MLJ (Crl) 146 , wherein this Court, after having considered various Judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Paragraph No.11, has held as follows:-

(3.) We find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the detention order and the typeset of papers of the detaining authority would reveal that the detaining authority had attested the affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority and played a dual role, which is evidentially obvious that there is a possibility of predetermination on the part of the detaining authority. Further, the detaining authority, in a hurried manner, passed the detention order without verifying the fact as to the pendency of the bail petition in respect of Crime No.231 of 2014, in which bail had been granted by the concerned Court below even prior to the passing of detention order. Therefore, there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned detention order and the said order is liable to be quashed.