LAKSHMI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenus along with five others have been detained by the District Magistrate/District Collector, Kancheepuram, the second respondent herein on the ground that they have indulged in the act of burning a passenger bus bearing Registration No.TN-23-N-2296 near Dhamal Village, Kancheepuram Taluk. In order to prevent them from further indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public peace, tranquility and public order, the detaining authority/the second respondent herein has passed detention orders against the detenus, namely, Mari and Palani in proceedings Nos.M1.D.O.No.84/2013, dated 12.5.2013 and M1.D.O.No.85/2013, dated 13.5.2013 respectively, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Thereafter, the detenus made representations to the Advisory Board on 18.6.2013 and the Advisory Board in turn has opined that there is sufficient cause for detention of the detenus in its order dated 19.6.2013. Subsequently, the validity of orders of detention was questioned by the petitioner in HCP.Nos.832 and 877 of 2013.

(2.) Simultaneously, on behalf of the detenus, their advocate has sent representations dated 20.5.2013 to the Government of India assailing the detention orders on the grounds; (i) it has been passed due to political pressure and to wreak vengeance, without application of mind and without following normal law; (ii) no cause for preventive arrest has been shown; (iii) the detenus have no antecedents and they are innocent and therefore, the detention orders are illegal. Based on the representations sent on behalf of the detenus, the Central Government/third respondent herein called for particulars from the detaining authority.

(3.) The detaining authority, after considering the representations of the detenus, sent para-wise remarks stating (i) on consideration of all the materials placed before him, he has passed the orders of detention under the National Security Act; (ii) there is no political enmity as alleged by the detenus in their representations; (iii) since the detenus involved in adverse cases and ground case and created panic among the public, in order to prevent them from indulging in any further activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State, maintenance of essential services to community, maintenance of public peace, tranquility and public order, the detention orders came to be passed; (iv) the detaining authority on consideration of the relevant materials and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction has passed the detention orders with clear application of mind; and (v) there is no infirmity crept in the proceedings and the detention orders are legally valid and prayed for rejection of the representations.