K.M. Natarajan, J. - (1.) One Ayyammal, the wife of the detenu Shanmugham @ Sevittu Shgnmugam filed this Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to quash the order of detention passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Periyar District at Erode on 10.11.1989 under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
(2.) The impugned order was passed after the detenu came to the adverse notice of the respondents as a bootlegger in view of instance cases and was detained on the basis of the ground case. The grounds of detention served on the detenu contains the details of all those case and hence it is needless to reiterate the same in this order. Though learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Venkatasubramaniam challenged the order of detention on various grounds, he confined his arguments to the only ground viz., the detaining authority has failed to consider the absence of percentage of Chloral Hydrate which will affect the public health under Section 2 (a) (i) of the Act and when the Doctor had not given any opinion about how much quantity will affect the health, the order of detention is vitiated.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the Chemical Analyst's report shows that the samples contain illicit arrack mixed with Chloral Hydrate, a poisonous intoxicating substance, that the Medical Officer, who was examined on the likely effect of consuming arrack mixed with Chloral Hydrate, has opined that it will affect the human system and will pose a grave danger to life and public health, that the signs and symptoms experienced by one Veerappan on 18.10.1989 are usually seen in cases of poison due to Chloral Hydrate and that therefore it is clear that the activities of the detenu as a bootlegger are nicely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Learned counsel drew our attention to the Analyst's report which shows that the Chloral Hydrate in two sample bottles is 0.73 and 0.76 respectively. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the statement of the Medical Officer wherein also it is simply stated that the Chloral Hydrate is a poisonous substance and consumption of such stuff is injurious to health and human life. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Medical Officer has not stated about the percentage of Chloral Hydrate found in the samples taken from the detenu which would affect the public health and that has not been considered by the Detaining Authority. In this connection, he drew our attention to two decisions of the Court in Thangam, Tmt. v. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu (1989 Law Weekly Criminal Page 173) wherein a Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the definition of "Bootlegger" as found in Section 2 (a) (i) and 2 (b) of the Act, held that the absence of opinion as to the quantum of Chloral Hydrate in liquor sold by the detenu was such as to cause grave or widespread danger to life or public health which would vitiate the order of detention. To the same effect, it was held in the decision reported in Cherian v. The State of Tamil Nadu in the same volume at page 572. In the instant case also, the Doctor who examined the samples of arrack seized from the detenu had not stated that the liquor in question was one which would cause grave or widespread danger to life or public health. As observed by the Bench in the decisions cited, the act of the detenu may constitute a case under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, but in the writ petition the court is concerned with the point whether such act of the detenu, who was found in possession of the record, would cause grave or widespread danger to life and public health. Such an ingredient is lacking in the instant case and we are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in this regard in the above mentioned decisions.;