LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-613

SELVAM @ SELVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

Decided On August 19, 2009
SELVAM @ SELVAKUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the detenu. He was detained 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), by order of the second respondent, branding him as a 'GOONDA'.

(2.) There are six adverse cases and one ground case as against the detenu. The details of the adverse cases are as under: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. Police Station and Section of Law Crime Number ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Madurai City, Thedeer Nagar 379 IPC Police Station Crime No. 2555 of 1999 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Sholavandan Police Station 392 r/w 397 IPC Crime No. 190 of 2001 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Madurai City Subramaniapuram 379 IPC Police Station Crime No. 816 of 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Madurai City Thallakulam Police 379 IPC Station Crime No. 1982 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Madurai City Thallakulam Police 379 IPC Station Crime No. 2030 of 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Madurai City Thallakulam Police 397 IPC Station Crime No. 64 of 2006 -----------------------------------------------------------------

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted there is no law and order problem in all the cases. Secondly, he submitted that the remand extension order was not furnished to the detenu. Thirdly, the Detaining Authority had passed the impugned order without applying its mind. Lastly, he submitted that there was delay in considering the representation of the petitioner.