Singh, J. -
(1.)This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, by Mrs. B. Devaki wife of the detenu R. Thamaraikani, challenges the validity of her husband's detention under the order of the Collector and District Magistrate of Kamarajar District Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu dated 15-8-1989 issued under S. 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (as amended by Act 52 of 1986 and Act 1 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.)After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length, we allowed the petition on 10-1 l- 1989 and issued directions for the release of the detenu forthwith. We are now giving the reasons for our order dated 10-11-1989.
(3.)The detenu R. Thamaraikani is a member of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party, briefly described as AIDMK. He has been an active social and political worker. He was elected Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from Srivilliputhur Constituency in the General Elections held in 1977, 1980 and 1984. In the General Elections held in January 1989 to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, he was defeated by the Dravida Munnetra Kazliagam Party candidate. He continues to be Joint Secretary of the AIDMK Party for Kamrajar District in Tamil Nadu and he has been taking active part in social and political activities in the District of Kamrajar. The petitioner has stated that there has been personal and political animosity between the detenu and Thiru Durai Murugan, Minister for Public Works and Highways in the present DMK Government. The District Magistrate issued the impugned order for the detention of her husband at the behest of Thiru Durai Murugan, the aforesaid Minister, respondent No. 3. The petitioner has referred to a number of incidents and to the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in support of her submission that there was political and personal animosity between the aforesaid Minister and her husband and the order of detention was made mala fide at the instance of the Minister, respondent No. 3.