AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Ramaswami, J.—This is a petition filed by one Radha, the mother of the detenu Babu alias Chakravarthi, for the issue of a writ of habeas
corpus to set aside the order of detention and set her son at liberty. The order of detention made u/s 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is, dated
2nd July, 1984. The grounds of detention refer to eight earlier instances where the detenue had come for adverse notice. On the basis of the first
seven instances referred to therein, on an earlier occasion, the detenu was detained on 13th February, 1982, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982, and he was released after the period of detention was over. The point taken by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this case
is that the detaining authority could not have taken into account the first seven instances referred to in the detention order in view of the provisions
of S. 14(2) of the Act. The order is, therefore, without jurisdiction and illegal.
Section 14(2) reads:
The revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not bar the making of a fresh detention order u/s 3 against the same person, in any case, where
fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry, on which the State Government or an Officer, as the case may be, are or is satisfied
that such an order should be made.
Though it is put as an enabling provision to make a fresh order where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry of the earlier
detention order, it implies that in making the fresh order, the detaining authority could not take into account any of the instances which were the
subject matter of the earlier order. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, in In the matter of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, etc.
Mohammed Moosa, N. v. The Collector and District Magistrate Ramnad Dt. 1984 L.W. (Crl.) 200 considered a similar question. It was held that
Section 14(2) is intended to confer a specific and limited power on the Government and not to leave the matter to be considered under the general
law. Therefore, since the provision specifically restricts the powers of the Government, the fresh order could be made only on fresh facts in its
entirety. If the order of detention relies not only on fresh facts but also on grounds which were in existence prior to the revocation or expiry of the
order, the order of detention would be vitiated by lack of jurisdiction on the part of the detaining authority. The order of detention in the instant
case, therefore, is illegal and could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside and the Respondents are directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.