9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Madras High Court quashing the order of detention dated 29.3.1988 passed by the Detaining Authority. A Habeas Corpus Petition was filed by the wife of Kethiyan Perumal (hereinafter described as "the detenu") who was detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short the 'Act'). The High Court allowed the Habeas Corpus Petition primarily on the ground that the Detaining Authority took into consideration extraneous matters while recording the finding about unlawful activities of the detenu or that it was highly dangerous to the public order. The High Court distinguished the decision of this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there was a confession of respondent No. 1 where there was clear admission about the unlawful activities. In any event the effect of Section 5A of the Act has not been kept in view by the High Court. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice. The High Court did not take note of the fact that the factual distinction sought to be brought about by the detenu is not supportable. In both Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi's case (supra) and the present case the Forest Officer's report was common. Effect of the confessional statement and the background facts have not been taken note of. Before we go to the legal aspects involved it would be necessary to sort out confusion entertained by the High Court. Int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakshmi case (supra) this court categorically held that in view of Section 5A of the Act an extraneous and irrelevant ground does not affect validity of the detention order as Section 5A was introduced precisely to take care of such a situation. This Court, inter alia, held as follows: "The second contention is based on the facts stated in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention. It is manifest from the facts stated in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention that the emphasis is twofold: (1) that to profit from the high price fetched by sandal wood in the open market, illicit felling of sandal wood trees is on the increase, thereby causing widespread danger to the ecological system and loss of revenue to Government and (2) that the huge m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. Counsel for the detenu next contended that the second aspect of paragraph 4 shows that extraneous considerations weighed with the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order. He submitted that it is too remote to think that tribals resort to drinking, gambling and turn anti-socials merely because some extra money falls into their hands. Assuming without deciding that this contention is well founded, we are of the opinion that Section 5A of the Act takes care of it. Even if we were to hold that this ground is extraneous or irrelevant, that would not affect the validity of the detention order as Section 5A was introduced precisely to take care of such a situation. We, therefore, do not see any merit in the second conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
