9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till pending. b) On 21.07.2011, respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Police passed a detention order against the detenu under Section 3 of 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 (14 of 1982) while holding the detenu to be a `goonda' noticing his involvement in the case of 18.07.2011 as well as three past cases of the years 2008 and 2010. c) Against the said order of detention, the appellant sent a representation to the Detaining Authority on 25.07.2011 for revoking the detention order. He also made a representation to the State Government, which is the approving authority, against the said order. After receiving the representation of the appellant on 28.07.2011, the Detaining Authority forwarded the same to the Government recommending rejection of the same. On 12.08.2011, the State Government after due consideration rejected the said representation. d) Aggrieved by the said decision of the State Government, the appellant herein filed Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court. The High Court, by its impugned judgment dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (Tamil Nadu Act 59 of 1992). The said Act was enacted by the State in the year 1982 and subsequently amended expanding the scope of the Act in order to prevent certain persons from dangerous activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Since there is no dispute as to the power and execution, there is no need to refer other provisions. 8) We have carefully perused all the relevant materials and considered the rival submissions. 9) With regard to the first submission that no case is made out for preventive detention by invoking the provisions of T.N. Act 14 of 1982, though the ground case incident arose out of a land dispute between the detenu and the de facto complainant, however, the argument that it is only a law and order problem and that public order was not disturbed is contrary to the facts and equally untenable. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, the Detaining Authority, on consideration of materials placed has found that the accused caused damage to both public and private properties, threatened the public and also created a situation of panic among the public. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act No. 14 of 1982. By committing the above described grave crime in a busy locality cum business area, he has created a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the people of the area in which the occurrence took place and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." 11) It is well settled that the court does not interfere with the subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority except in exceptional and extremely limited grounds. The court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Detaining Authority when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant, that sufficiency of grounds is not for the Court but for the Detaining Authority for the formation of subjective satisfaction that the detention of a person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order is required and that such satisfaction is subjective and not objective. The object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive and further that the action of the executive in detaining a person being only precautionary, normally, the matter has necessarily to be left to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho is supposed to safeguard and protect the interest of public. Accordingly, we reject the contention raised by learned senior counsel for the appellant. 14) The next contention relates to non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority in respect of the bail obtained by the detenu. Learned AAG, by drawing our attention to the factual details narrated in the grounds of detention and in the counter affidavit submitted that such argument is factually incorrect. A contention has been raised that the accused had obtained regular bail in all the criminal cases referred to in the detention order and not anticipatory bail as noted therein, and therefore, there is non-application of the mind to the relevant material by the Detaining Authority. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the State, the said claim is factually incorrect. It is also brought to our notice that the said submission was made only now before this Court as an afterthought. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court clearly shows that the only contention before the High Court was that the detenu got regular bail in Crime No. 727 of 2010 but the Detaining Authority has wrongly mentioned the same as anti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear from the information furnished in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State before this Court. 17) Finally, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the cases relied on by the Detaining Authority are stale. In order to answer this contention, we once again perused the entire grounds of detention. The ground case relates to the occurrence dated 18.07.2011 and prior to that, the detenu was involved in two cases in the year 2010 and one case in the year 2008. The above details clearly show that the detenu was a habitual offender and as such instances shown are not stale as argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. These aspects have been taken note of by the High Court, in fact, the High Court has found that the detenu had indulged in one case in the year 2008 and two cases in the year 2010 and the ground case in 2011. The particulars also show that in the year 2010, the detenu had indulged in two cases within a span of 6 months and again had indulged in the ground case in the year 2011, therefore, incident nos. 2 and 3 cannot be said to be stale and, in such circumstance, the conclusion of the Detaining Authority that the detenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
