N NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE (XVI) DEPARTMENT,; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE; SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON, MADURAI CENTRAL PRISON AND THE SECRETARY, ADVISORY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Habeas Corpus Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order of detention, dated 13.11.2008, clamped on him by the 2nd Respondent, branding him as a "Goonda", under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

(2.) The Detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in three cases, as detailed below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. No. Police Station and Crime No. Provisions of Law -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Kariapatti P.S.Cr. No. 406/2005 Under Section 457, 380 IPC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Aruppukottai Taluk P.S. Cr. No. 38/2006 Under Section 379 and 75 IPC -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Kariapatti P.S.Cr. No. 274/2007 Under Section 379 IPC --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3.) Even though several contentions were raised and argued as well, learned Counsel for the Petitioner confined his arguments as to non-consideration of the representation, dated 19.11.2008, preferred by the wife of the Petitioner, by the Detaining Authority before the Detention Order was approved by the State Government. By drawing our attention to the Grounds of Detention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted tht in paragraph No. 6 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has specifically indicated that the Detenu has a right to make a representation in writing against the order by which he was kept under detention to the Detaining Authority and if any such representation in writing against the detention order was made to the Detaining Authority and if any such representation was received by the Detaining authority within 12 days before the approval of the Government, the said representation would be duly considered by the Detaining Authority but, in the counter affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority while admitting the receipt of the representation dated 19.11.2008 on 20.11.2008, the Detaining Authority has only stated that upon receiving remarks from the Sponsoring Authority a report was sent to the Government on 24.11.2008 and there is no whisper as to the consideration of the representation by himself before approval. Therefore, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that non consideration of the representation received by the Detaining Authority within 12 days before the approval of the Governments, as indicated in the grounds of detention, would have the effect of vitiating the order of detention.