STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. ALAGAR
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-136
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on July 06,2006

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Appellant
VERSUS
ALAGAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUNIL FULCHAND SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. KETHIYAN PERUMAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

K SHANMUGAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-521] [REFERRED TO]
N K JAWAHAR ALI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT BADDI VS. ADDL DIST MAGISTRATE AND POLICE COMMNR [LAWS(SC)-2008-4-207] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT BADDI VS. ADDL DIST MAGISTRATE AND POLICE COMMNR [LAWS(SC)-2008-4-207] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. R SASIKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. ABDULLAH KADHER BATCHA [LAWS(SC)-2008-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS. SALEENA [LAWS(SC)-2016-1-86] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court quashing the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of bootleggers, Drug offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short the Act).
(2.)The order of detention was passed as the respondent was identified as a "Goonda" as defined in the Act. It was indicated in the order of detention that it had come to the notice of the detaining authority that a large number of cases were registered against him and on 27.4.1998 he acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention was challenged before the High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution). The only plea taken was that the sponsoring authority had sworn to an affidavit dated 15.6.1998 and had forwarded the same to the detaining authority with the material for consideration of the detaining authority. In the said affidavit there could not have been any mention of the order of remand dated 24.6.1998. But in the order of detention reference was made to the said fact. The Detaining Authority produced the records to show that in fact the Sponsoring Authority had appeared before the Detaining Authority on 26.6.1998 and the file clearly indicated that the order of remand was brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority before he passed the order of detention on 26.6.1998. The High Court perused the original file but was of the view that the Detaining Authority should have sent the document in question i.e. order relating to the remand along with a forwarding letter and in any event an additional affidavit was required to be filed. Therefore, it was held that the order of detention was not sustainable.
(3.)Mr. V.G. Pragasam, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the order of remand had been brought to the notice of the detaining authority by the Sponsoring Authority before the order of detention was passed. On a hypo-technical ground that, though the same was brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority, there should have been a forwarding letter to the Detaining Authority or at least an additional affidavit should have been filed the order of detention should not have been quashed. The order, therefore, is clearly unsustainable. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent- detenu in spite of notice.


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