Kamalammal vs The Commissioner of Police and The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 29.06.2005, detaining her son by name Baktha @ Bakthavatchalam as ''Goonda'' 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).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, has submitted that there are several infirmities in describing the details regarding the adverse cases. By pointing out those mistakes/infirmities, it is contended that in the absence of clarification by the person concerned, the ultimate order passed by the Detaining Authority is vitiated.

In the light of the said contention, we verified those details. First of all, the mistakes/infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner are trivial in nature and the same would not affect the ultimate order passed by the Detaining authority. In any event, as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, all those mistakes/infirmities relate to adverse cases. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any defect, infirmity or mistake with reference to the ground case. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel.

Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.