P MUTHUSWAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detention order passed in respect of one Solai, son of Periasami, by District Magistrate and District Collector, Karur dated 28-11-1998 dubbing him to be a 'Bootlegger' and directing his detention 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 (hereinafter called as Act 14/82) is challenged in this petition.

(2.) The concerned authority has relied upon three adverse cases and a ground case. According to the ground case, the concerned detenu was arrested only on 11-11-1998, when a complaint was made against him by one of his customers that he purchased arrack from the detenu and he felt giddiness and had vomiting sensation and suffered on account of the drinking of that arrack. We are not required to go into the factual details particularly because the learned counsel has restricted himself to only one question. According to the learned counsel, in the representation which was sent on his behalf on 5-1-1999 to the State Government he had sought certain documents. The first document sought by the detenu was the extract of the general diary of the police station between 7-11-1998 and 11-11-1998. The second document sought was the search list dated 7-11-1998, while the third document sought for was the relevant entries of Food Distribution Register between 7-11-1998 and 11-11-1998. These documents were sought, as the contention of the detenu in the representation was that he was never arrested on 11-11-1998, but he was in fact in the police custody right from 7-11-1998 and while in custody he was searched and therefore, a search list was prepared. So also he was given food. Therefore, his name was to be found in the Food Distribution Register. The detenu probably wanted to buttress his contention that he was in the police custodyalready right from 7-11-1998 to 11-11-1998 by producing these documents. His representation dated 5-1-1999 was rejected by the State Government on 12-1-1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the order rejecting the representation. However, he invited our attention to the portion "Vernacular matter omitted".In English the true translation would be 'the District Collector, Karur has been requested to deliver those documents relating to the preventive detention of the detenu'.

(3.) From this the learned counsel submits that though the State Government had agreed to hand over the documents sought for in the representation, the said documents have never been supplied. This has caused prejudice to make a proper representation and has, therefore, breached the right under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India, thus rendering the further detention illegal.