Ravi vs The Commissioner of Police and The Govt. of Tamil Nadu

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner who was detained as ""Goonda"" under Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 21.1.2005,

challenges the same in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the foremost submitted that the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground of non

application of mind since there is discrepancy in mentioning the date of remand. In the light of the said contention, we verified the remand report

(Tamil version) which finds place at pages 97, 98 and 99 of the Paper Book which shows that the detenu was arrested on 22.12.2004. This has

been correctly stated in the remand report. However in page 99 it has been wrongly mentioned as 9.12.2004 and a request was made for

remanding him for a period of 15 days. A perusal of those details show that the reference made at page 99 of the Paper Book is only a

typographical error on the part of the Sponsoring Authority. We are satisfied that the same cannot be attributed to the Detaining Authority who is

the competent authority in passing the detention order. We are satisfied that the mistake in the report of the Sponsoring Authority has not affected

the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority.

Coming to the second contention that in the absence of "" compelling necessity"", the Detaining Authority is not justified in passing the impugned

order, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that taking note of the relevant materials, the Detaining Authority has rightly passed

the impugned order of detention. A perusal of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Grounds of Detention clearly show that the Detaining Authority has

possessed required materials and on satisfying himself that there is compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging

in such activities in future, passed the order of detention. On perusal of those details in Paragraphs 3 and 4, we are of the view that there is no

substance in the claim made by the counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the translated copy of the arrest report supplied to the detenu would submit that

there is improper translation. In the light of the said contention, we verified pages 100, 111 and 112 of the Paper Book which shows that though

the bail application of the detenu was dismissed on 6.1.2005, in the English version, it is stated that the said application was filed on 12.1.2005,

whereas in the Tamil version, it is mentioned as 6.1.2005. Here again, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, it is a petition

filed by the detenu himself and secondly, the date mentioned in the English Version, namely 12.1.20 05, is only a typographical error since the

petition itself was dismissed by the court on 6.1.2005.

Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though initially the detenu was remanded till 5.1.2005, again his remand was

extended till 19.1.2005 and further extended till 22.2.2005, the remand extension order upto 19.1.2005 has not been stated by the Detaining

Authority in the grounds of detention i.e., at Paragraph 3. It is not in dispute that those orders extending the remand till 22.2.2005 are available in

the Paper Book supplied to the detenu. Here again, as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the Detaining Authority was aware of

the relevant fact that the detenu was in remand upto 22.2.2005. In other words, while passing the order of detention i.e., on 21.1.2005, the

Detaining Authority possessed the relevant fact, namely the detenu was in remand. In such circumstances, we hold that the mere omission with

regard to the extension of remand till 19.1.2005 in the grounds of detention has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. A similar view has been

expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in HCP.No.1961 of 2002, dated 24.1.2003 (Padmavathi Vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater

Chennai & another). Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.

In the light of what is stated above, we hold that there is no merit in this Habeas Corpus Petition and the same is dismissed.