9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 970X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.1999 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the detenu') was detained under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short the `Act'). The only point urged before the High Court was that an order of detention was passed on 9.7.1999 and on 6.7.1999 the mother of the detenu had sent a representation to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. A copy of the representation was marked to the Director General of Police, Chennai, the Advisory Board under the Act as well as the Chief J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be proper to appoint Mr. K.K. Mani, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly wrong. There was no question of any representation even before the order of detention was passed and there was no question of sending it to the Advisory Board. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that since the representations sent to the Chief Minister and the Advisory Board amongst others had been received, the High Court found that the Director General of Police is presumed to have received the notice. Therefore, impugned order cannot be faulted. We find that the High Court's order proceeds on presumption. Merely because two of the addressees had received the representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a smokescreen by an unscrupulous detenu to take the authorities by surprise, acting surreptitiously or with ulterior motives. In the present case, the order (grounds) of detention specifically indicated the authority to whom the representation was to be made. Such indication is also a part of the move to facilitate an expeditious consideration of the representations actually made. 18. The respondent does not appear to have come with clean hands to the court. In the writ petition there was no mention that the representation was made to the President; instead it was specifically stated in paragraph 23 that the representation was made by registered post to the first respondent on 11-5-2000 and a similar representation was made to the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural that the representation should indicate as to why the representation was made to the President or the Governor and not the indicated authorities. It should also be clearly indicated as to whom the representation has been made specifically, and not in the manner done in the case at hand. The President as well as the Governor, no doubt are constitutional Heads of the respective Governments but the day-to-day administration at respective levels is carried on by the Heads of the Departments/Ministries concerned and designated officers who alone are ultimately responsible and accountable for the action taken or to be taken in a given case. If really the citizen concerned genuinely and honestly felt or was interested in getting an expeditiou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble and accountable for the action taken or to be taken in a given case. If really the citizen concerned genuinely and honestly felt or is interested in getting an expeditious consideration or disposal of his grievance, he would and should honestly approach the real authorities concerned and would not adopt any dubious devices with the sole aim of deliberately creating a situation for delay in consideration and cry for relief on his own manipulated ground, by directing his representation to an authority which is not directly/immediately concerned with such consideration. 18. Where, however, a person alleging infraction of personal liberty tries to act in a manner which is more aimed at deflecting the course of justice than for protecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate Government is neither rendered unconstitutional nor illegal. 5. The question of making a representation to the Advisory Board arises only after the order of detention had been passed and served on the detenu. The High Court therefore, was clearly in error in quashing the order of detention. 6. Another point which has been urged is that the incidence referred to in the order of detention is stale and could not have formed the foundation for the order of detention. We find that several incidents have been referred to in the order of detention and the last of such instances was of 22.6.1999. The detention order was passed on 9.7.1999 and, therefore, it cannot be said to be relatable to stale incidents. The impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
