- (1.) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in BCDFGISSSV No.42/2015 dated 06.05.2015, whereby the detenu, viz., Kemburaj, S/o.Chokkalingam, aged 50 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions 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, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".
(2.) Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.
(3.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu is in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.151/2015 registered by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram and he has filed bail application in Crl.MP.No.1102/2015 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalapattu on 22.04.2015 and the same was pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order. The Detaining Authority has stated that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case and that if the detenu comes out on bail he will indulge in such further activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. But, the Detaining Authority has not specifically stated that there is a "REAL POSSIBILITY" or "IMMINENT POSSIBILITY" of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case. He adds that absence of the said expression in the grounds of detention would vitiate the order of detention. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu would likely to get bail in the ground case. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record. In the absence of such material on record, the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of the detention. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind. In support of his contention that the expression in explicit terms about the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail should be there in the order of detention and the absence would vitiate the order of detention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER, 2006 1 MadLJ(Cri) 539 and [b]VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, 2005 1 CTC 577 .;