IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 04.09.2006 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.MANIKUMAR H.C.P.No.620 of 2006 Raja Alias Rajan .. Petitioner -vs- 1.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George,Chennai 9. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India t issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records pertainin to the impugned detention order vide No.35/2006 dated on 28.1.200 passed by the second respondent and approved by the first responden and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent t produce the detenu Raja alias Rajan now lodged in Central Prison Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Doraisamy for Mr.S.Jayaseelan For Respondents : Mr.M..Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The petitioner, who is detained as a "Goonda" as contemplate under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffi Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Ac 14, 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 28.01.2006, challenge the same in this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as wel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitte that the arrest of the detenu was not intimated to family members, bu to a friend, which is not acceptable. 4. It is not in dispute that as per the decision of the Suprem Court reported in 1997 SCC (cri) 92 [D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal the arrest has to be intimated to his family members or his friend The arrest memo which is available at column No.12 in page No.53 of th booklet supplied to the detenu shows that the arrest was intimated t one James, S/o Jeyachandran Nadar, residing at No.157, Ganesh Nagar Selaiyur. The arrest memo also shows that he is a friend of th detenu. In view of the same, we find no flaw in the procedure, a claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that ther is no public order warranting invocation of Act 14 of 1982 in the cas of the detenu. 6. We are unable to accept the said contention. The grounds o detention show that the detenu had involved in four cases, all unde Section 379 I.P.C. of different police stations. The first adverse cas relates to S13 Chrompet Police Station, second adverse case relates t S11 Tambaram Police Station, third adverse case relates to S15 Selaiyu Police Station and the fourth adverse case comes within th jurisdiction of S12 Chitlpakkam Police Station. 7. In the ground case, which had taken place on 01.01.2006, whe the complainant Kirubanandham was proceeding at Chitlapakkam near th tank, the detenu armed with a knife wrongfully restrained him and b uttering in filthy language threatened him. Since the complainan refused to pay the money which he had with him, the detenu b threatening, snatched the money from his pocket. He also snatche his wrist watch. When the detenu was proceeding towards Vivek Nagar the complainant raised hue and cry and when the public who were at th spot came for his rescue and when they attempted to apprehend him, h threatened them all by uttering in filthy language at the knife point The public who were at the spot on seeing the atrocious activities, ra for safer places out of fear of danger to their lives and properties The persons coming in vehicles diverted their road and there wa traffic dislocation. All these material aspects were considered an taken note of by the detaining authority, while passing the detentio order. The grounds of detention also show that the detaining authorit on satisfying himself, particularly with regard to the past record o the detenu as well as the ground of occurrence and after finding tha if the detenu comes out, he will again indulge in such activities whic would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped th impugned detention order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. In the light of the materials available before the detainin authority and its decision being based on acceptable material, we ar unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for th petitioner. Except the above mentioned contention, no other ground i urged, disputing the detention order. Consequently, the petition fail and the same is dismissed. GMS Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George,Chennai 9. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Joint Secretary to Govt. Pleader, (Law & Order) Fort ST. George, Chennai-9. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chenai - 8. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 CC TO MR.S. JAYASEELAN, ADVOCATE SR 40784 H.C.P.No.620 of 200 NA(CO) BP/15 04.09.2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/