2011 (12) TMI 722 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order based on stale cases.
2. Disturbance of public order versus law and order issue.
3. Erroneous observation regarding anticipatory bail.
4. Consideration of the detenu's representation by the detaining authority.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Detention Order Based on Stale Cases:
The petitioner challenged the detention order u/s Tamil Nadu Act 14, 1982, arguing that the adverse cases cited were stale. The court noted that the adverse cases from 2008, 2010, and 2011 were not stale, as the detenu had committed offenses within a short span, indicating habitual criminal behavior. The court found the detaining authority's conclusion that the detenu was a habitual offender to be justified and not based on stale instances.

2. Disturbance of Public Order Versus Law and Order Issue:
The petitioner argued that the incident was a land dispute and did not disturb public order. The court held that the detaining authority's observation that the detenu's actions were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was based on subjective satisfaction, supported by witness statements. The court rejected the contention that it was merely a law and order issue.

3. Erroneous Observation Regarding Anticipatory Bail:
The petitioner contended that the detaining authority's observation about the detenu obtaining anticipatory bail was erroneous. The court found that the detenu was in remand only for Crime No. 361 of 2011 and not in the other cases. The detaining authority's concern was whether the detenu would be released on bail in the ground case, which was justified. The court concluded that the erroneous observation did not vitiate the detention order.

4. Consideration of the Detenu's Representation by the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner argued that the detaining authority failed to consider the detenu's representation, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court noted that the representation was received on 28.7.2011, and the detention order was approved by the government on 29.7.2011. The court held that there was no violation of Article 22(5) as the approval by the government relieved the detaining authority of the obligation to consider the representation.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, upholding the detention order as valid and not liable to be set aside.