R KALAVATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-110
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on July 03,2006

R KALAVATHI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMILNADU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VIJAY NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KAUSHIKBHAI NAGDANBHAI AHIR KASO VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-7-75] [REFERRED TO]
N KANCHANA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-241] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-197] [REFERRED TO]
MANI VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-428] [REFERRED TO]
RAZIA BEGUM VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-95] [REFERRED TO]
MANNAR ALIAS EZHILARASAN ALIAS SURESH ALIAS ARIF VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
K K SARAVANA BABU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2008-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-108] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-11-197] [REFERRED TO]
JAYA W/O SIVABALAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-399] [RELIED]
SHAJI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-7-199] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SARMANBHAI JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-425] [REFERRED TO]
E.SUBBULAKSHMI VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT. & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-52] [REFERRED TO]
R. ELUSAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
MARKANDAN VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
ARBIND CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
PARAPATTY SURESH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-209] [REFERRED TO]
PALANIYAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT,; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND; INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-558] [REFERRED]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2007-12-586] [REFERRED]
KALAVATHI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
DIPU SINGH @ HULO VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2020-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY ALIAS BALLU BHARATBHAI RAMANBHAI PATNI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-319] [REFERRED TO]
KU. AKANSHA RAJAWAT VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-2-102] [REFERRED TO]
BANOTHU JAGAN VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
BURRY SRINIVAS VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-3-99] [REFERRED TO]
BANKA SNEHA SHEELA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(SC)-2021-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
FARHAT KAUSAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA SINGH VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
MALLADA K. SRI RAM VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-1-38] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the appellant seeking release of Rathina Raj @ Rathnavel Pandian (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu'), who was detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short the 'Act') as a "Goonda". The accusation against him was to the effect that he is habitually committing crime and that he had also acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a "Goonda" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.
(3.)The order of detention was passed in respect of Rathina Raj, which was approved by the State Government. The detention order was challenged by filing a Habeas Corpus petition before the Madras High Court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.