AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner Balan alias Balasundaram has been detained as a ''bootlegger'' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dated 13.10.1995, passed by the second Respondent, Collector and District Magistrate of Villupuram Ramasamy Padayatchiar District, Villupuram, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.
To answer the four contentions urged by Petitioner''s learned Counsel, it will be unnecessary to state the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned order.
The first contention was that the Detaining Authority has stated in the grounds of detention, that the Petitioner had in his possession, when arrested, 3 cans of 35 litres, each containing 35, 35 and 30 litres respectively, of illicitly distilled arrack. However, while opposing the bail application before the learned Sessions Judge and this Court, investigating agency has stated that the Petitioner was in possession of 70 litres of arrack and not 100 litres of arrack. This discrepancy, not having been resolved, would suffice to show non-application of mind, was the submission we are unable to agree, for, Petitioner''s learned Counsel fairly agreed that the documents of seizure, contemporaneously prepared, at or about the time of the arrest of the Petitioner, clearly show that from the three cans, in the possession of the Petitioner, 100 litres of arrack were seized, as mentioned in the grounds of detention. This ground has no merit. It shall stand rejected.
The next submission was that in the grounds of detention, Detaining Authority has stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 that the person concerned was "a detenu", even before the grounds of detention was fully prepared and that would only indicate that the impugned order was preconceived. In paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, Detaining Authority has clearly stated that the person, who has been sought to be detained, through the impugned grounds, has a right to make a representation to the authorities mentioned therein. This can hardly be stated to be an outcome of pre-conception. In paragraph 5 of the grounds, Detaining Authority has stated that he was aware that the Petitioner was a remand prisoner from 25.9.1995. In the next line, he has stated that he was aware that this "preventive detention prisoner had preferred a bail application. This apparently signifies that the person, who was in remand, was being sought to be detained. On mere coining of words we cannot hold, that there has been non-application of mind, by missing the context, this ground is rejected.
The third submission-was that the representation dated 20.3.1996 has not yet been disposed of. We find that the representation dated 20.3.1996 was received by the State Government, by post on 25.3.1996. Para-war remarks were called for, on die same day, to be received by the State Government on 11.4.1996, leading to rejection of representation on 12.4.1996. In between 25.3.1996 and 12.4.1996, we find that five holidays had intervened. We are unable to hold that there has been long delay in disposal of this representation. This ground also fails.
The final submission was that close relations of the detenu, were not informed, within a reasonable time, about the place of detention and the fact of detention. Here again, Petitioner has no case, for, his wife Ellammal was informed of these twin facts, under her acknowledgment, on 15.10.1995. This ground is also rejected.
No other ground was urged. This habeas corpus petition, which has no merit, shall stand dismissed.