KAMALA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by one Kamala, challenging the order dated 16-8-2002 passed by District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram, branding one Murugan as goonda and directing his detention under Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short Act 14 of 1982 ).

(2.) One adverse case is shown against this Murugan while the ground case is based on an incident dated 27-5-2002, which pertained to the murder of one Kutty, husband of Tmt. Mangalam Kutty. The said Mangalam Kutty was the President of the Melamaiyur village panchayat at the relevant time. In the reasons it is suggested that detenu belonged to the group of one Kanitha Sampath, sitting Member of Legislative Assembly from Thirupporur Assembly constituency and the wife of the deceased Kutty had political rivalry with Kanitha Sampath and this has resulted into the murder of Kutty at the hands of the henchmen of the said Kanitha Sampath. As many as six persons have been shown to be arrested on account of the allegation that they assaulted Kutty with aruval and knives and caused him injuries resulting in his death on the spot. The detaining authority has also relied on the fact that Mangalam Kutty had lodged a number of complaints to the concerned police station because of the threatening calls and threatening letters directed at her by the henchmen of her political rival. It is also pointed out that Mangalam Kutty was elected as the President of the said village panchayat union, defeating the sitting M.L.A., Kanitha Sampath. The detaining authority had come to the conclusion that this murder of the husband of the village panchayat has resulted in the disturbance to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swamidoss Manoharan firstly pointed out that pages 81, 83, 193, 259, 261 and 29 were illegible and, therefore, the detenu found it difficult to read the same. He, therefore, had sought legible copy of these pages. He further points out that 177, 179, 181, 183, 41, 43, 45 and 33 were entirely in English and since the detenu did not understand English, he had sought the Tamil translation of these pages. Learned counsel suggested that though these pages have been given, the Tamil translation of pages 177, 179, 181 and 193 are not there in the booklet. He, therefore, suggests that this amounts to the denial of opportunity to make a proper and effective representation against his detention.