AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—This order shall govern these three Habeas Corpus Petitions.
The above Habeas Corpus Petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are relatives of the detenus in each case, challenging the detention order of the first respondent dated 25.7.2006, wherein the detenus were termed as "sand offender".
The detention orders under challenge are perused and the Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
As could be see from the detention orders under challenge, the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority was that when all these detenus were involved in the sand theft, the Village Administrative Officer (V.A.O) of Vaipar Part-I Village of Vilathikulam Taluk questioned the conduct of the detenus, but all the detenus threatened him by showing spade. However, the V.A.O and his assistants managed to catch the detenus and the sand laden Tractor and handed over the same to the Kulathur Police Station and he also gave a complaint on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in crime No. 51/2006 u/s 21(1)(4) of Mines and Minerals Development & Regulation Act, Rule 36-A of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959, Section 379, 506(ii) IPC and 3 & 4 of Taminadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act on 22.7.2006 by the Kulathur Police and the investigation was taken up. Statements of the witnesses in the village were recorded. All the materials were placed before the Detaining Authority along with the recommendation of the sponsoring authority. The detaining authority thought it fit that those persons have got to be termed as sand offenders as they were found in indulging in an activity, which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised three contentions in the instant case. According to him, there was only one ground case wherein the detenus have been found as sand offenders. However, no adverse case was actually noticed and that being so, recommendation was made by the sponsoring authority that the detenus have come to adverse notice regularly, on the basis of which, the detaining authority has passed the detention orders, which has no basis whatsoever and at no point of time, they were found in any act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is only a false case foisted against the detenus on the ground that the act of the detenus was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention orders would indicate that materials were not placed in support of such statements. Under the circumstances, it was one without any application of mind and even without any materials, whatsoever, the detention orders have been passed. Added further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, there was delay in considering the representation of the petitioners and a copy of the approval order was also not served to the detenus and under the circumstances, the detention orders have got to be set aside.
On the contrary, it was contended by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that there was neither delay in considering the representation of the petitioners nor as if the approval order copy was not served. In the instant case, it is true, it is mentioned by the sponsoring authority that the detenus have come to adverse notice regularly. For making such observation, materials were available and placed before the detaining authority. A case was registered by the respondent police on a complaint given by the V.A.O, and also a number of witnesses in the village were also examined and their statements were also recorded and they were placed before the detaining authority and the statement of these witnesses would indicate that there was actually illicit sand mining, which led to the degradation of potable water and depletion of the ground water table, which would cause health hazards. Under the circumstances, all the materials were considered and then such observation was given by the detaining authority.
Counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of the first respondent denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions.
After hearing the rival submissions made and perusing the materials placed on record, particularly, the detention orders, the Court is of the considered opinion that all the Habeas Corpus Petitions have got to be dismissed.
Firstly, the Court is unable to notice any delay in considering the representation of the petitioners and secondly approval order copy was served and acknowledgements are available with the State. As such, both the grounds are not available as put-forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Insofar as the third contention that in the absence of any material with the detaining authority, there is no point in stating that the petitioners have come to adverse notice regularly is concerned, in the instant case, on the basis of a complaint given by the V.A.O., a case came to be registered and enquiry was made, and a number of witnesses have been examined in the village. Even as per the recommendation of the sponsoring authority, in the orders of the detention, it could be seen that on 22.7.2006 at 17.00 hours, when the V.A.O and his assistants went for raid, they found the detenus were loading sand to the Tractor and the Tractor damaged the Vaipar river bund to an extent of worth Rs. 2,500/- and when the V.A.O. and his assistants shouted, the detnu threatened them to life by showing the spade. However, the V.A.O. managed to catch the detenus and handed over the detenus and the tractor involved in the offence to the Kulathur Police and gave the complaint and a case came to be registered. As such, it is evident that the detenus were indulged in such illicit sand mining and thus, all these materials are available. Under the circumstances, it is true, the sponsoring authority has stated that the detenus have come to adverse notice regularly. In such circumstances, it can not be stated that it is bereft of merits. There are materials and only on the basis of the materials available and only on subjective satisfaction, the detaining authority has passed the orders that too in the instant case, there was illicit sand quarrying which caused degradation of potable water quality and depletion of ground water table and the same would cause health hazards. Under the circumstances, the V.A.O. has correctly given a complaint that the actions of the persons/detenus were detrimental to the public order.
Under the circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners do not merit acceptance. The Habeas Corpus Petitions fail and the same are dismissed.