MARIAMMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is preferred by the mother of the detenu challenging the detention order dated 4.5.2008 passed by the second respondent branding her daughter as "Drug-Offender" under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982). In the Petition mainly two grounds were raised, namely, (1) No material was placed before the Detaining Authority to come to the conclusion that on the date of clamping the order of detention, the detenu was in remand; and (2) the Application for bail was opposed by the sponsoring authority on the ground that action is contemplated to detain the detenu under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 and since the Sponsoring Authority had acted in a pre-determined mind, the detention order is vitiated.

(2.) The Division Bench before which the Writ Petition came up for hearing accepted the first ground and accordingly quashed the order of detention. Before the Division Bench, in support of the second ground, an order of a Division Bench in Sarala v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai and another,2005 MadLJ(Cri) 1004, order of a Division Bench in Chinnathambi v. State of Tamil Nadu,2008 1 MadLJ(Cri) 953, were cited, wherein, the said Division Benches have taken the view that in the event of the Sponsoring Authority had represented before the Court while opposing the Bail Application that the detenu were likely to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, it would show the pre-determined mind on the part of the Sponsoring Authority, which would vitiate the orders of detention.

(3.) The Division Bench, which heard the present case, found it difficult to accept the said view taken by the earlier Division Benches in Sarala v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai and another,2005 MadLJ(Cri) 1004 and Chinnathambi v. State of Tamil Nadu,2008 1 MadLJ(Cri) 953. Therefore, the Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. Murugesan (as he then was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Sathyanarayanan, directed the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice for constitution of a Full Bench to answer the following question: