NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J. - (1.) This writ petition is instituted by the wife of detenu, detained by an order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, on 26.10.2016 exercising the power available to him under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (henceforth, referred to as, 'the Act, for the sake of brevity). On the same day, the grounds of detention have also been drawn by the Detaining Authority and they were served on the detenu. It will also be important to notice that the detention order in Tamil and the grounds of detention in Tamil were also drawn and served on the detenu on the same day.
(2.) The grounds of detention make a reference to three criminal cases. The first one relates to Crime No.2401 of 2015 on the file of K.K.Nagar Police Station. It is alleged that the detenu caused death of Tmt.Dhanalakshmi by strangulation on 3rd August 2015. With a view to conceal the body, it is alleged, he has cut it into pieces and packed them in a Box. It is the landlord of the house who lodged the complaint with the police who registered the aforementioned crime. The second relates to Crime No.815 of 2016 on the file of Sankar Nagar police station. It involves lifting of a TVS Excel make motor vehicle indulged in on 04.03.2016 at 16.30 hours. The third one is Crime No.1824 of 2016 on the file of S.5 Pallavaram police station concerning extortion of money by subjecting the individual to threat and creating fear or danger to the life and limb of the said individual.
(3.) It is fairly well settled principle of law that the preventive detention order is the culmination of subjective satisfaction of the relevant factors by the competent authority. There was never any objective consideration necessary, ordering for preventive detention. Since there is no other remedy available, excepting making a representation to the Advisory Board, the detenu or those acting on his behalf, have no option but to move this Court at the earliest. The procedural requirements and their faithful compliance are the only safety features available against the preventive detention order.;