Saravanan vs The Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Excise Dept. and The District Magistrate and District Collector

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, who is detained as Video Pirate 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 ) by the impugned detention order dated 02.08.2005, challenges the same in this Petition.

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

At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu.

With regard to the same, learned Government Advocate placed the particulars which show that the representation was received by the

Government on 24.08.2005, remarks were called for on 25.08.2005 and the same were received on 06.09.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt

with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 08.09.2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 09.09.2005.

The Rejection Letter was prepared on 13.09.2005 and sent to the detenu on 14.09.2005 and served to him on 16.09.2005. On going through the

above details, we are satisfied that, even if the intervening holidays are excluded, there is no undue delay at every stage as claimed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, we reject the said contention.

By drawing our attention to the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the grounds of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

though it was informed that the detenu was free to make representation to the Government, there is no specific information in the Tamil version of

the grounds of detention that such representation will be duly considered by the Government. According to the counsel, the detenu was confused

due to the absence of such information in the Tamil version.

It is true that in the Tamil version, particularly in paragraph No. 7 , there is no specific reference to consideration of representation by the

Government. On the other hand, it is not in dispute that on receipt of the grounds of detention, the detenu made a representation to the

Government on 20.08.2005 and the same was duly considered and rejected. In such circumstances, the said contention is also liable to be

rejected.

By drawing our attention to the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode, dated 02.08.2005, in and by which, the learned Magistrate

dismissed the bail application of the detenu and another, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of proper explanation or

reference, it would be highly impossible for the Detaining Authority to go through the order of the learned Magistrate before passing the impugned

order of detention on the same day, ie., on 02.08.2005.

In so far as the said contention is concerned, it is not in dispute that the bail petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate at Erode on

02.08.2005. Likewise, it is also not in dispute that the detention order was passed by the District Magistrate/Collector, Erode. In such

circumstances, it cannot be construed that the Detaining Authority might not have had time to go through the order as claimed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. Inasmuch as the Detaining Authority is also at the same place, namely, at Erode, we are unable to accept the above

contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

By drawing our attention to the order of the learned Magistrate dated 02.08.2005, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that though the

First Information Report refers only two persons as accused, ie., Saravanan (detenu/owner of the Video shop) and one Pachayappan, reference

has been made in paragraph No. 3 of the order that the Sponsoring Authority has to secure other accused in respect of the same offence, which is

not supported by any material.

First of all, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the observation made in paragraph No. 3 of the order is the reasoning

given by the learned Magistrate. In fact, in paragraph No. 2 , the learned Magistrate referred to the objections raised by the Public Prosecutor,

which do not refer about other accused to be apprehended. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the observation made in paragraph No.

3 of the order dated 02.08.2005 in no way affects the ultimate order passed by the Detaining Authority.

By drawing our attention to paragraph No. 6 of the grounds of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a reading of the

said paragraph amply shows the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. In paragraph No. 6, the Detaining Authority has

stated as follows:-

I am satisfied that on the materials mentioned above if Thiru. Saravanan comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order and public health...

It is argued that as per Section 2(1)(a)(vi) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, only in cases of maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority is

empowered to detain any person, engaged or is making preparations for engaging in video piracy, under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982 .

It is true that in paragraph No. 6, the Detaining Authority, while referring the fact that the detenu will indulge in further activities prejudicial to

the maintenance of public order, has also stated public health, which is not warranted. As pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, in the

earlier paragraphs, particularly in paragraph No. 5, since the Detaining Authority has correctly mentioned that he was aware of the fact that if the

detenu comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is clear that the Detaining

Authority was well aware that the future activities of the detenu will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Merely because there is a

reference to public health in paragraph No. 6, it cannot be construed that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind before passing the

impugned order of detention. Hence, we reject this contention also.

In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same stands

dismissed.