LexK.K. SARAVANA BABU versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 12 S.C.R. 468 K.K. SARAVANA BABU V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1332 of 2008) AUGUST 22, 2008 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Preventive Detention - Detention of detenu relying on two criminal cases against him relating to land grabbing - c Propriety of - Held: Detention order is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable - Even if criminal cases relied on by detaining authority are assumed to be correct, no case of disturbance of public order is made out - Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest 0 Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 - .3(1). E Words and Phrases - 'Public order' - Meaning of in ....... the context of preventive. detention. Appellant-detenu was detained uls 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerious Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982. The detention was ordered F relying on two criminal cases relating to land grabbing. G H Detenu's representation seeking revocation of the ~ detention was rejected. His writ petition seeking quashing of detention order was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: Cases affecting the public order are those Ja which have great potentiality to disturb peace and tranquillity of a particulai· locality or disturb the even 468 )f K.K. SARAVANA BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL 469 NADU &ANR. tempo of the life of the community of that specified locality. A The detention order passed against the detenu was arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable because even assuming the allegation in both the cases relied on by the detaining authority are correct, then also no case of disturbance of public order is made out. The detenu can be dealt with B :.1 under the ordinary criminal law if. it becomes imperative. [Paras 30, 31 and 32] [482-G 483-0, 482-E, 483-C] Brij Bhushan and Anr v. The State of Delhi (1950) SCR 605; Ramesh Thappar v. The State of Madras (1950) SCR : 4 594; Dr R_am Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Ors. C -1 (1966) 1 SCR 709 - followed. Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (1970) 1 SCC 98; Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 852; Babu/ Mitra alias Anil Mitra v. State of 0 West Bengal and Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 393; Dipak Bose alias Naripada v. State of West Bengal (1973) 4 SCC 43; Kuso Sah v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (1974) 1 sec 185 and + Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and Ors. (1982) 2 SCC 403; Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. C. Anita (Smt.) (2004) 7 SCC 467; R. Ka/avathi v. State of Tamil Nadu E (2006) 6 sec 14 - relied on. Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and Ors. (1985) 4 SCC 232; Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar and Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 416 and TV. F ,+ Sravanan alias S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi v. State through Secretary and Anr (2006) 2 SCC 664 - referred to. Case Law Reference (1950) SCR 605 Followed Para 15 G ..... (1950) SCR 594 Followed Para 16 . (1966) 1 SCR 709 Followed Para 18 (1970) 1 sec 98 Relied on Para 19 H 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. 7- A AIR 1970 SC 852 Relied on Para 20 (1973) 1 sec 393 Relied on Para 21 (1973) 4 sec 43 Relied on Para 22 (1974) 1 sec 185 Relied on Para 23 B (1982) 2 sec 403 Relied on Para 24 .)J. (1985) 4 sec 232 Referred to Para 26 (1986) 4 sec 416 Referred to Para 27 (2004) 1 sec 467 Relied on Para 28 c ~· (2006) 6 sec 14 Relied on Para 29 (2006) 2 sec 664 Referred to Para 30 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal D Appeal No. 1332 of 2008 From the Order dated 29.4.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in H.C.P. No. 1677 of 2007 Huzefa Ahmadi, S. Vallinayagam and Y. Raja Gopala -+-- Rao for the Appellant. ' E ~ ' T.L.V. Iyer, R. Nedumaran and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the --/... High Court of Madras passed in Habeas Corpus Petition No.1677 of 2007 on 29th April, 2008. G 3. The detenu has challenged the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, ~ Goondas,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.