DEVARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the friend of the detenu, viz., Olimaran who has been detained by the second respondent under Act 14 of 1982 after identifying him as "boot-legger". THE detenu had come into adverse notice of the authorities in four cases. It is not necessary for us to state the facts in detail since the writ will have to be allowed on the ground of non- furnishing the proper translation copies to the detenu.

(2.) IT is alleged in the ground case that while the detenu was found selling distilled arrack, the police arrested him and recovered the contraband on 23.6.1998 and that after the seizure of the contraband, the remaining arrack was destroyed. Thereafter, a case was registered in Cr.No.365 of 1998 under Section 4(1)(i) r/w, 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. Basing upon the materials, the second respondent has come to the conclusion that the detenu is a boot-legger and thereupon, the impugned order is passed.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this court in HCP No.1083 of 1996 dated 28.7.1997. The question that arose for consideration in the above case was, whether the failure on the part of the detaining authority to appraise the detenu about the right of his making an independent representation to the Advisory board apart from making his right of representation to the state Government would vitiate the order of detention. In the earlier case, the Division Bench while considering above aspect has held that failure to inform the detenu that he has got right to make representation to the Advisory Board would vitiate the detention order. Later, the Division Bench on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v.Union of India, 1995 SC (Crl.) 643 has come to the conclusion that the view taken by the same Division Bench in HCP 63 of 1997 was not correct. The above decision will not apply to the facts of the present case.