The accusation against him was to the effect that he is habitually companymitting crime and that he had also acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a Goonda as defined under Section 2 f of the Act.
That being so, the detenu was number in a position to make an effective representation Relevant and material documents were number placed before the detaining authority and were also number supplied to the detenu and as such he was prevented from making an effective representation Sufficient material was number placed before the detaining authority to pass the order of detention which was passed mechanically.
The other grounds were also number accepted.
Before the High Court primarily the following grounds were urged There is discrepancy in the case numbers and the detaining authority was number supplied with material documents The translated companyy supplied to the detenu in Tamil language was different from what was supplied in the English language and there were several defects.
The detention order was challenged by filing a Habeas Corpus petition before the Madras High Court.
The order of detention was passed in respect of Rathina Raj, which was approved by the State Government.
No.1711/2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
In support of the appeal, Mr. Jayant Bhushan learned senior companynsel submitted that at least two documents clearly show that the records were manipulated.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the appellant seeking release of Rathina Raj Rathnavel Pandian hereinafter referred to as 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, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 in short the Act as a Goonda.
Arising out of S.L.P .
