STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus ALAGAR

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 06-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
V. 
ALAGAR 
JULY 6, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention : 
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug 
C Offenders, Fores/ Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum 
Grabbers Act, 1982: 
D 
E 
Section 3(1)-0rder of detention-Requirement for placing of material 
by sponsoring authority before detaining authority-Held, sponsoring authority 
having appeared before detaining authority and placed material before him, 
High Court's view that there should have been a forwarding letter or an 
additional affidavit is clearly without any basis. 
Preventive Detention : 
Order of High Court quashing detention order set aside-Surrendering 
of detenu to serve remainder period of detention-Held, State Government to 
consider this aspect and pass appropriate orders. 
A detention order was passed against the respondent under Section 
3(1) of the Tamil Na du Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, 
p Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders 
and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982, since he was identified as a 'Goonda' as 
defined under the Act. The said order was challenged before the High 
Court on the ground that in the affidavit sworn by the sponsoring 
authority and sent to the detaining authority, there was no mention of the 
remand order but the order of detention refers to the said fact. The High 
G Court quashed the detention order holding that sponsoring authority 
should have sent the document relating to remand alongwith a forwarding 
letter or should have filed an additional affidavit. Aggrieved, the State filed 
the present appeal. 
H 
310 
STATE OFTAMlL NADUv. ALAGAR (PASAYAT, J.) 
311 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The order of remand was placed by the sponsoring 
authority before the detaining authority. The High Court's view that there 
should have been a forwarding letter or an additional affidavit is clearly 
without any basis. Order of the High Court is set aside. 1312-G-H; 313-AI 
2. As regards surrendering of detenu for serving remaining period 
A 
B 
of detention in view of passage of time, the State shall consider whether 
there still exists a proximate temporal nexus between the period of 
detention indicated in the order by which the detenu was required to be 
detained and the date when the detenu is required to be detained pursuant C 
to the present order. 1313-B-E] 
Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India & Ors., [2000[ 3 SCC 409 and 
State of TN. and Anr. v. Kethiyan Perumal, [2004] 8 SCC 780, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 067 D 
of 1999. 
From the Final Order dated 20.4.1999 of the Madras High Court in 
11.C.P. No. 1298/1998. 
V.G. Pragasam and Subramonium Prasad (NP) for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARrJIT PASA Y AT, J. Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment 
rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court quashing the order 
E 
of detention passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Virudhunagar, F 
Tamil Nadu under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous 
Activities of bootleggers, Drug offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral 
Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short the 'Act'). 
The order of detention was passed as the respondent was identified as 
a "Goonda" as defined in the Act. It was indicated in the order of detention G 
that it had come to the notice of the detaining authority that a large number 
of cases were registered against him and on 27.4.1998 he acted in a manner 
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention was 
challenged before the High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the 
Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The only plea taken 
was that the sponsoring authority had sworn to an affidavit dated 15.6.1998 H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A and had forwarded the same to the detaining authority with the material for 
consideration of the detaining authority. In the said affidavit there could not 
have been any mention of the order of remand dated 24.6.1998. But in the 
order of detention reference was made to the said fact. The Detaining Authority 
produced the records to show that in fact the Sponsoring Authority had 
appeared before the Detaining Authority on 26.6.1998 and the file clearly 
B indicated that the order ofremand was bro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.