E. Mohan vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, The District Magistrate and District Collector, The Inspector of Police and The Superintendent Central Special Prison for Women

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is the son of the detenue by name Amirtham, challenges the impugned detention order dated

29.01.2005, branding the detenue as ''Bootlegger'' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,

Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of

1982).

At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the requisition from the Inspector of Police to the Judicial

Magistrate-II, Tindivanam, which finds place at page No. 53 of the Booklet, would submit that the Crime Number referred therein has nothing to

do with the detenue and in the absence of any explanation, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on

the part of the Detaining Authority.

With regard to the above contention, we have verified all the three adverse cases, which relate to crime Nos.94/2002, 281/2002 & 429/2 002,

and the ground case in Crime No. 11/2005, all registered on the file of Brammadesam Police Station. We are satisfied that Crime No. 4 12/04

referred in the requisition at page No. 53 of the Booklet has nothing to do with the detenue. This material aspect has not been considered/noted by

the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention. It shows the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, which

vitiates the ultimate order of detention.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 29.01.2005 is set aside. The detenue is directed

to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless she is required in some other case or cause.