(1.) - This writ petition bas been filed by one Megammal, who is the mother of the detenu, Kesavan, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of habeas corpus for quashing the order of detention dated 25th June, 1987 passed against the said detenu and setting him at liberty.
(2.) The impugned order dated 25th June, 1987 was passed by the second respondent, namely the Collector and District Magistrate, North Arcot, Dt. Vellore, in exercise of the powers conferred in sub - Section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Shim Grabbers Act of 1982, Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu came to the adverse notice that he is a goonda in view of the six cases referred to in the preamble to the order of detention and on the basis of the ground case, the said order of detention was passed. Since the entire facts of the ground case are set out in the detention order, it is needless to narrate the same once again in this order.
(3.) Though learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. V. Bhakthavatchalam, raised various grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, lie has confined his argument only to one ground, namely, on the date of the order of detention, the detenu was in judicial custody, that there was no compeling necessity for detaining him further under Act 14 of 1982, and there is absolutely nothing to show that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the question that the said detenu might be released or that there was such a possibility of release while passing the said order and as such, the order is vitiated. He has the said raised ground in para V of the affidavit, wherein it is stated: The detenu was in judicial custody since 11th June, 1987. He was remanded in the ground case in Vellore town Police Order No. 374/84 under Section 324, I. P. C. The detenu was refused bail before the First Class Magistrate and he did not move for bail in higher courts. While so his detention on 25th June, 1987 is most arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted. Even the Supreme Court is of the view that a detention order to a person who is already in Jail is illegal and unwarranted. In reply to the said allegation, it is averred in para V of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent (detaining authority) as follows: The averment made in Ground V of the affidavit is untenable in law. The detenu was detained only with a view to prevent him from further indulging in any criminal activities as to endanger the public peace and order. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the fact the detenu was sent for remand by the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Vellore, and the investigation of the said case under Section 394, I. P. C. , has not been completed has been referred to in para 3 of the detention order. He has further submitted that in Paras 4 and 5 of the detention order, the detaining authority has given the reason for the detention of the detenu under Act 14 of 1982, in spite of the fact that he was on remand. It is worthwhile to quote the same for the proper appreciation of the contentions of both the parties. Para 4 reads as follows: I am aware that Thiru Kesavan is now in remand and that he would be proceeded against under the normal law. However, I am satisfied that his activities warrant his detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In para 5 also, it is stated as follows: TIJ am also satisfied that from the materials mentioned above that if Kesavan is led to remain at large, he will indulge in further activities, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and further, the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore, I consider that it is necessary to detain him in custody prejudical to the maintenance of public order.