JANARTHANAM, J. - (1.) One N. Selvaraj, petitioner, is the brother of the detenu Subbaian. The detenu it is said, is a bootlegger. Apart from the ground case as set out in the grounds of detention, he had come to adverse notice in eight other cases. The District Magistrate and Collector, of Nagapattinam Quaide-Milleth District, Nagapattinam (first respondent) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 clamped upon the detenu the impugned order of detention in his proceedings C.O. No. 75/94 dated 5-12-94 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health.
(2.) Mr. A.K.S. Thahir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would press into service the following points :(1) There was no due and proper intimation to the blood relations of the detenu as respects the place of his detention within a reasonable time from the date of his detention;(2) The representation dated 22-12-94 addressed to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had not at all been considered;(3) The representation dated 23-12-94 made by Mr. N. Selvaraj, brother of the detenu, sent directly to the Advisory Board had not at all been considered of by the second respondent Government till up today;(4) The possibility of the detenu being available as a free person to commit the occurrence in the ground case, the occurrence relating to which happened on 15-11-94, is rather remote especially when no material, in the shape of document, had been furnished to the detenu that he paid the fine amount imposed in adverse case No. 8 and in the absence of such a document showing payment of fine, it is not at all possible for him to have committed the occurrence in the ground case as he had been lodged in prison.(5) The non-furnishing of a copy of the letter sent to the Assistant Director, Forensic Laboratory, Tanjore, by Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Nagappattinam, making a request to analyse the sample bottle sent to him, vitiates the order of detention.(6) The reaction or response of the first respondent Detaining Authority as to the materials revolving on the questions of foisting of a false case and illegal detention of the detenu by the Sponsoring Authority, as stated by the bail application (Crl. M.P. No. 1508/94) filed by the detenu before the Court of Sessions Nagapattinam, not getting reflected in the impugned order of detention is a factor vitiating the detention.
(3.) Mr. R. Reghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondents, would however repel such submission and produce the relevant files for perusal and consideration of this Court.;