S. Nirmala vs State by (Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police)

M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent made in Memo No. 394/BDFGISSV/2009 directing the

petitioner''s husband Suresh to be detained under Act 14 of 1982 branding him as a Goonda.

The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side and looked into all the materials available.

It is not in controversy that on the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that he is involved in 12 cases namely (1) D5 Marina PS

Crime No. 165/2009 u/s 379 IPC; (2) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 179/2009 u/s 379 IPC; (3) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 180/2009 u/s 379 IPC;

(4) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 328/2009 u/s 379 IPC; (5) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 783/2009 u/s 379 IPC; (6) D5 Marina PS Crime No.

902/2009 u/s 379 IPC; (7) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 1017/2009 u/s 379 IPC; (8) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 1088/2009 u/s 379 IPC; (9) D5

Marina PS Crime No. 1116/2009 u/s 379 IPC; (10) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 1196/2009 u/s 379 IPC; (11) R8 Vadapalani PS Crime No.

835/2008 u/s 379 IPC and (12) D5 Marina PS Crime No. 1369/2009 u/s 379 IPC and also one ground case in D5 Marina PS Crime No.

1384/2009 under Sections 341, 397 read with 394, 336 and 506(2) of IPC for an occurrence on 10.10.2009, and he was also arrested on

11.10.2009, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the materials, recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial

to the maintenance of the public order and has made the order under challenge after branding him as Goonda.

Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel inter alia urged two grounds. Firstly, the name of the detenu is actually

Suresh, but in paragraph 3 of the order, the authority has stated the name of the detenu as Sowrirajan and that is not correct. Secondly, as could

be seen from the FIR in Crime No. 1384/2009, the occurrence has taken place at about 1600 hours on 10.10.2009; but the detaining authority

has stated in its order that the occurrence has taken place in the morning hours, and it would indicate the non-application of mind, and on that

ground, the order has got to be set aside.

The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on both the contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.

After scrutiny of the materials available and hearing the submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the detaining

authority has got to be set aside on both grounds. It is not in controversy that the name of the detenu, the husband of the petitioner, is Suresh and

not Sowrirajan. In paragraph 3 of the order, the detaining authority has mentioned his name as Sowrirajan, and thus it is found to be not only

incorrect, but also misleading, and no explanation is tendered by the State how this has crept in.

Apart from the above, the occurrence in Crime No. 1384/2009 has taken place at 1600 hours on 10.10.2009.

But, contrarily it is stated by the authority in its order that the incident has taken place in the busy morning hours, and thus it was also contrary,

which would indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that both

these grounds would suffice to set aside the order.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order of detention passed by the second respondent is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be set at

liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.