- (1.)THE second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against Narayanan alias Muttakadai Narayanan, son of Krishnan, husband of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Bootlegger and he has to be detained under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 ).
(2.)
2. 1. The order of detention dated 19. 5. 2007 came to be passed by the second respondent on the basis of the ground case said to have taken place on 27. 4. 2007 at about 6. 00 a. m. , when the Inspector of Police, Chennai City attached Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madhavaram Unit along with his police party were conducting vehicular check at the junction of Redhills, Vadakarai, they found an auto bearing registration No. TN-05-J-9201 proceedings towards the said junction in high speed, on suspicion, the auto was stopped and they found Karnataka ID Arrack duplicate sachets of 50 ml. kept in gunny bags. In all 4500 numbers of sachets were seized and the detenu was arrested. A case was registered in Crime No. 48 of 2007 on the file of Prohibition Enforcement Wing Madhavaram Unit for the offences punishable under Sections 4 (1) (i), 4 (1) (aaa) read with 4 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. On chemical analysis, the Doctor stated that the arrack is mixed with 8. 2 mg. of atrophine per 100 ml. arrack and the same is a poisonous substance. 2. 2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of the two adverse cases pending against the detenu, viz. , Crime No. 75 of 2007 on the file of the Washermenpet Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offence punishable under Section 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for the occurrence said to have taken place on 26. 5. 2007 and Crime No. 47 of 2007 on the file of the Madhavaram Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offence punishable under Section 4 (1) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act for the occurrence said to have taken place on 23. 4. 2007. 2. 3. The detaining authority, having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public health and order, passed the impugned order.

(3.)CHALLENGING the said detention, the wife of the detenu has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the second respondent in Memo No. 210/bdfgissv/2007, dated 19. 5. 2007, to quash the same and thereby to direct the detenu, detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai to be produced before this Court and to set him at liberty.