LexMRS. T. DEVAKI versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
MRS. T. DEVAKI
v.
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.
-{
MARCH 7, 1990
B
[K.N. SINGH, M.H. KANIA AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,
Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Immoral Traffic Offenders and
Slum Grabbers, Act, 1982.
c
Detention Order-Whether detaining authority required to specify
period of detention-Solitary incidelll of murderous assault-'Law and
order' or 'public order' problem-Distinction between-Solitary inci-
dent can raise only a law and order problem and nothing more.
Detention Order-Subjective satisfaction-Detaining authority >--.
D
himself present at the place of occurrence-Should have relied more on
own knowledge and observations than report of sponsoring authority-
Non-application of mind in making the order of detention-Order
quashed.
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was
"----.
E
filed by the wife of the detenu challenging the validity of the Detention
Order dated 15.8.1989 passed against her husband by the Collector and
District Magistrate of Kamarajar District Virudhunagar, Tamil Nadu
on allegations inter alia that the District Magistrate had issued the
~
impugned order for detention of her husband, who is an active member
of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party, an active ,
F
social and political worker and ex-member of the Tamil Nadu Legisla-
live Assembly, at the behest of Respondent No. 3--a Minister in the 1
present DMK Government, on account of personal and political
animosity between the two.
Counsel for the Detenu urged two grounds to attack the order of
G
detention. Firstly that the order did not specify the period of detention,
and secondly that the sole ground of detention as reflected in the
Grounds of Detention bas no relevance to the maintenance of 'Public
Order' as the facts mentioned therein donot make out any case of viola-
>--..
lion of public order. At best, it may be a case of law and order only
which exhibits non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
H
836
·'t·
;.-·
;
MRS. T. DEVAKI v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU
837
Allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned order of
detention on the ground of non-application of mind by the Detaining
Anthority in passing the Detention order, this Court,
HELD: (1) Since the Act does not reqnire the detaining authority
to specify the period for which a detenu is required to be detained the
order of detention is not rendered invalid or illegal in the absence of
such specification in the Detention order. [843E]
Commissioner of Police & Anr. v. Gurbux Anand ram Biryani,
[1988] Supp. SCC 568-0ver-ruled. Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administ-
ration & Ors., [1982] 2 SCC 403, Ujagar Singh v. The State of Punjab,
[1952] 3 SCR 756; Suna Ullah Butt v. State of Jammu & Kashmir,
[1973] 1 SCR 870; Suresh Bhojraj Chelani v. State of Maharashtra,
[1983] l SCC 382 and A.K. Roy v. Union of India & Ors., [1982] l SCC
271, approved.
(2) In a case where the_ detaining anthority may not be present at
the place of the incident or the occurrence, he has to form the requisite
opinion on the basis of materials placed before him by the sponsoring
authority but where tbe detaining authority was himself present at tbe
scene of occurrence he should have relied more on his own knawledge and
observation then on the report of the sponsoring authority. [853H; 854A]
A
B
c
D
In the instant case, the detaining authority though present at the · E
scene of occurrence does not support the incident as presented to him by
the sponsoring authority, and yet he issued the detention order on the
report of sponsoring authority. In these circumstances, there was uon-
applicalion of mind by the detaining authority in making the order of
detention. [854B]
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, [1966] l SCR 709;
Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, [1969] 2 SCR
635; Shyamal Chakraborty v. Commissioner of Police Calcutta & Anr.,
[1970] l SCR 762; Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, [1970] 3 SCR
288; Nagendra Nath Monda/ v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 1SCC498;
Sudhir Kumar Saha v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, [1970] 3 SCR
360; S.K. Kedar v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 3 SCC 816; Kanu
Biswas v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 3 SCC 831; Kishori Mohan v.
State of West Bengal, [1972] 3 SCC 845; Amiya Kumar Karmakar v.
State of West Bengal, [1972] 2 SCC 672 and Manu Bhusan Roy
Prodhan v. State of Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.