SEVANAMMAL Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Habeas Corpus Petition, the Petitioner - wife of the Detenu, challenges the order of detention clamped on the Detenu by the 3rd 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.) Consequent upon the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority that the Detenu was involved in two adverse cases, as detailed below, 1 C.S.C.I.D., Uthamapalayam Police Station Under Section 6(4) of TNSC (DDCS) Order, 1982, Cr. No. 627/2008 r/w 7 (i) a (ii) of EC Act 1955 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 C.S.C.I.D., Uthamapalayam Police Station Under Section 6(4) of TNSC (DDCS) Order, 1982, Cr. No. 45/2009 r/w 7 (i) a (ii) of EC Act 1955 ____________________________________________________________________________________________

(3.) Even though several contentions were raised and argued as well, learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly confined his arguments to the aspect of non-application of mind by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. When the detenu was branded as a Black Marketeer, he is facing two adverse case and one ground case. In ground case in crime No. 47 of 2009 has been registered on 20.03.2009 and arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam on 21.03.2009 and remanded till 03.04.2009. In the second adverse case, the occurrence had taken place on 14.03.2009 and case was registered in Crime No. 45 of 2009 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (DDCS) Order, 1982, r/w 7(i)a(ii) of EC Act 1955. In this case also, the accused was produced before the same Magistrate on 21.03.2009 and remanded till 03.04.2009. But, in grounds of detention, in Paragraph 3, it was stated as follows: