B. ANANDAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVT, OF TAMIL NADU, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9 AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order dated 12.9.1998 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tuticorin under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest -Offenders and Slum -Grabbers Act, 1982 (Act No. 14 of 1982), directing the detention of one Buckle Nadar, son of Ramaiah Nadar is in challenge in this petition. The said Buckle Nadar has been dubbed is a Bootlegger in the aforementioned Order.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset invited our attention to the fact that the Sponsoring Authority had sworn to an affidavit only on 9 -9 -1998 while the order was passed on 12.9.1998. The learned Counsel pointed out that the Sponsoring Authority, therefore, was not in a position to know that the remand was extended on 11.9.1998, as the earlier remand had ended on 11.9.1998 which was a date after the swearing of the affidavit. From this, the learned Counsel carries his further argument that, there was no material before the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the remand was extended from 11.9.1998 to 25.9.1998. The learned Counsel, therefore, suggests that the detaining authority has acted without application of mind and has relied upon certain materials which were extraneous to the records, as in fact there was nothing before the detaining authority to show that the remand was extended.

(3.) THE learned Counsel then submitted that there are some blanks at pages 13 and 25. We have ourselves examined the records. What is left blank is Property Register Number. We are not impressed by this omission which could be even due to the typographical error or because of the mechanical error. No prejudice is caused to the detenu on account of the non -mention of the Property Register Numbers at page No. 25. Therefore, we are not in a position to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the non -mention of the Property Register Number in the Book is fatal to the detention. No other point has been argued before us. In short, there is no merit in the petition and it must be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.