(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who was detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by order of the second respondent in M.H.S. Confdl.No.68/2009 dated 02.06.2009, by branding him as a 'GOONDA'.
2. There are five adverse cases and one ground case as against the detenu. The details of the adverse cases are as under:-
Sl. Police Station Section of Law No. and Crime No.
1. Thiruvengadam Police 392 IPC Station Crime No.11 of 2009
2. Chinakovilankulam Police 392 IPC Station Crime No.18 of 2009
3. Malli Police Station 379 IPC Crime No.48 of 2009
4. Sathur Town Police Station 392 IPC Crime No.256 of 2009
5. Karivalamvanthanallur 392 IPC Police Station Crime No.54 of 2009 The ground case was registered under
Sections 387 and
506(ii) IPC on the file of the Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station in Crime No.74 of 2009. In the ground case, the detenu was arrested on 07.05.2009 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil and remanded to judicial custody till 05.06.2009. The detention order was clamped on the detenu on 02.06.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of detention passed by the second respondent is vitiated on the ground that the pre-detention representation of the detenu was not considered by the authorities. For this, he relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Pushparani, A. v. The Commissioner of Police, reported in 2003 (1) CTC 616 and argued that when the pre-detention representation was not considered, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
5. In paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, the receipt of the pre-detention representation was admitted. On a thorough scanning of the Detention Order, it is clear that the pre-detention representation of the detenu was not considered at the time of passing of grounds of detention, even though it is claimed that the said pre-detention representation was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District. Having tested the present case in the light of the decision of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in 2003 (1) CTC 616, we are of the considered view that the order of detention passed by the second respondent is vitiated, on the ground that the Detaining Authority had failed to consider the pre-detention representation of the detenu.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Order No.M.H.S.Confdl.No.68 of 2009 dated 2.6.2009 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.