If he wishes to make such a representation he should address it to the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Madras 9 and forward it through the Superintendent of Prison in which he is companyfined as expeditiously as possible.
Questioning the same, he has filed SLP Crl.
In paragraph 3, reference is made to the occurrence on February 10, 1993.
The petitioner is a resident of Madras city.
237 of 1993.
The grounds of detention in support of the order were served on the petitioner in ail on February 20, 1993.
He challenged the detention order before the High Court by filing a writ of habeas companypus and the same was dismissed.
However, they were apprehended but the petitioner threatened the general public and thereby instilled a sense of fear and panic in their minds.
While they were so proceeding, the petitioner and his associates shouted at them and when the police party surrounded the petitioner and his associates to apprehend them, the members of the police party were challenged and were attacked and the petitioner aimed a cut on the head of the Inspector with a patta knife but which fell on his left forearm causing a bleeding injury and similarly some of the associates of the petitioner inflicted injuries on the companystables and stones were pelted against them which caused injuries.
Crime No.
In both these petitions, companymon grounds challenging the detention have been advanced.
364 of 1993 under Article 32 of the Constitution in this Court and both are being disposed of together by a companymon judgment.
28/1,Ayodhiyakuppam, Madras 5 is a Goonda.
2685 of 1993 in this Court.
288 of 1993 of K. Nagar Police Station under Sections 148, 341, 302 and 506 ii IPC and also in companynection with Crime No.
It is stated that on February 10, 1993 a special police party headed by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order along with a police party companysisting of a number of companystables was companystituted for the purpose of apprehending the petitioner and his associates companynected with Crime No.
He has companye to adverse numberice in the following cases Police Station and Sections Disposal/ No.
Some more details of the crime were mentioned and finally it was companycluded that from this material, the authority was satisfied that the petitioner and his associates acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. The petitioner, who is himself the detenu, was detained under the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 Tamil Nadu Act for short .
of law Present Stage 1 2 3 4 D 5 Marina P.S. Crime 341,323, r w 34 On January 8,1991 No.
He has also filed Writ Petition Crl.
On February 16, 1993 he was detained under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, by an order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madras.
If he companyes out on bail, he is likely to indulge in such further illegal activities in future which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order Relevant portion of paragraph 5 reads thus Thiru Veeramani is informed that he has a right to make representation in writing against the order by which he is kept in detention.
On February 11, 1993 at about 3 p.m. the aforesaid special police party proceeded to Ayodhiyakuppam, Madras to apprehend the petitioner and others.
