VENKATESAN ALIAS POONGA VENKATESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the detenu, who is detained as an Immoral Traffic Offender under 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 ).

(2.) IT is alleged that the detenu is a habitual offender under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. For clamping the order of detention, the detaining authority has relied upon four adverse cases and the ground case. It is alleged that the detenu brought girls in cars and induced innocent family men and youths to have sexual intercourse with the girls by taking them to lodges or to the brothel house run by him at Plot No. 7, 2nd Street, Ramana Nagar Extension, madambakkam, for money. He was arrested in the ground case on 05. 10. 2008 and a case was registered in Crime No. 4 of 2008 by the inspector of Police, Anti Trafficking Cell, CB cid for the offences under Sections 3 (1)4 (1), 5 (1) and 6 (1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The sponsoring authority, namely, the Inspector of Police, Anti Trafficking cell, CB CID, sent a proposal on 11. 10. 2008 to the detaining authority, the 2nd respondent herein, to take action against the detenu under Act 14 of 1982 stating that the activities of the detenu adversely affect the maintenance of the public order. The detaining authority, after considering the entire materials placed before him, has passed the order of detention dated 15. 10. 2008, branding the detenu as an Immoral traffic offender' as contemplated under section 2 (g) of Act 14 of 1982 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Challenging the said detention order, the detenu has come forward with this habeas corpus petition, by raising various grounds.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the order of detention was passed by the 2nd respondent without application of mind. Further more, the detenu was curtailed from making effective representation, by not furnishing him certain documents in the language known to him, which has caused much prejudice to his rights guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of india. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel made the following submissions by traversing through the grounds of detention and also various documents available in the booklet furnished to him, which are as follows: