Since the grounds of detention did number disclose that the District Magistrate had taken the telegrams into companysideration, the detention was vitiated.
The detenus filed bail application before the Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur on November 26, 1991.
The detention order was thus vitiated for number companysideration of vital documents and number application of mind.
By a companymon judgment dated February 5, 1992, the High Court allowed both the petitions and quashed the detention orders.
Both the detenus were reported in the records of the District Magistrate as habitual criminals having history sheet of companymitting various crimes.
The occurrence which has been made the ground case in the detention orders, is alleged to have taken place on November 25, 1991 at 3.00 p.m. It is number necessary for us to go into details of the said occurrence, suffice it to say that the detenus allegedly companymitted violent crimes in a crowded locality against the police personnel and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
I have also perused the bail application filed on behalf of the detenu which companytains the averments that the detenu was arrested at 11.30 a.m. and I am also aware that it is a false statement of the detenu as he was arrested only at 3.00 p.m. Telegrams were sent at 4.54 p.m. only.
The detenus were released, as a result of the High Court judgment, in February 1992.
According to the detenus the telegrams were sent to various authorities including the District Magistrate, Thanjavur wherein it was companyplained that the detenus were taken by the police to the Thanjavur West Police Station at 11.00 a.m. on November 25, 1991 and were being kept in police custody illegally.
The detenus challenged the orders of detention before the High Court inter alia on the following ground The relevant and vital documents, namely, the telegrams sent on behalf of the detenus to the police authorities, the Chief Minister, the High Court and other authorities wherein it was companyplained that the detenus were taken in police custody at 11.00 a.m. on November 25, 1991, were neither placed before the detaining authority number the companyies of the said telegrams were supplied to the detenus in spite of the request in that respect made by them in their representations.
Hence, the companytention to the companytrary is number sustainable in law and is denied.
R. Ramanathan and G. Jothisankar were detained under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 the Act .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. Special leave granted in both the petitions.
All the documents relied in the grounds of detention have been furnished to the detenu.
These appeals, by way of special leave petitions, are by the State of Tamil Nadu against the judgment of the High Court.
The ground of detention while narrating the occurrence of the ground case specifically stated that the said occurrence took place at 3.00 p.m. on November 25, 1991 and the detenus were arrested by the police thereafter.
He and his associate were arrested only after the incident that took place at 3.00 p.m. on November 25, 1991.
Both the detenus were detained on the basis of the same ground case.
We do number agree with the reasoning and the companyclusions reached by the High Court.
The telegram referred to had been booked only after the arrest has been made, i.e. late in the evening.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the detention on this short ground.
We set aside the reasoning and companyclusions reached by the High Court on the above said issue.
The detenus challenged the detention by way of habeas companypus petitions before the Tamil Nadu High Court.
The orders of detention were passed in respect of both the detenus by the District Magistrate, Thanjavur under the Act.
