VEERAMANI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 04-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, G.N. RAY

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VEERAMANI 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
FEBRUARY 4, 1994 
B 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 22-Preventive Detention-Order of 
detention under s. 3 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of 
Bootleggers, Dmg Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic 
C Offenders and Slum Grabbers Ac~ 1982-Representation for revocation 
of-Held, representation must be made to authority who has power to approve, 
rescind or revoke the decision. 
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dmg 
Offend.ers, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum 
D Grabbers Act, 1982: Section 2(f), 3-'Goonda'-Order of detention served on 
detenu in jaif-Held, detention order can validly be passed if lietaining · 
authority is aware that detenu is in custody and there is a possiblity of his 
being released on bail and on being so released he would indulge in activities 
prejudicial to maintenance of public order. 
E 
Section 8--Grounds of detention-Disclosure to detenue-Limita-
tion-Held, if grounds are served within five days from passing of order, it 
must be constmed that they are served 'as soon as possible'. 
Sections 3, 14-0rder of detention-Approval of by State Govemment-
F 
Representation for revocation of-Held, representation can only be made to 
State Government which has power to approve or revoke. 
General Clauses Ac~ 1897/Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891: 
Section 21/Section 15-Detaining authority under T.N. Act 14 of 1982-Power 
to issue order of detention-Whcr:·1er ·includes power to revoke-Held, after 
G approval of order by State Govt., power preserved by virtue of provisions under 
General Clauses Act is no more exercisable. 
Words and Phrases: Expression 'as soon as may be' occurring ins. 8 
of T.N. Act No. 14 of 1982-lnterpretation of 
H 
'I)te petitioner was detained on 16.2.1993 under s. 3 of the Tamil 
616 
VEERAMANI v. STATEOFT.N. 
617 
Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, A 
Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grab-
bers Act, 1982. The grounds of detention were served on him on 20.2.1993 
in jail. The grounds mentioned that the petitioner was a Goonda. The 
petitioner had come to adverse notice in six cases. Four ca~es related to 
the crimes committed by the petitioner in the year 1991 and two cases were B 
in respect of the crimes committed on 10.2.1993. The detenu filed a writ of 
habeas corpus which was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter he filed 
the special leave petition as also the writ petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution. 
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of deten-
C 
tion was illegal as the detaining authority did not apply its mind to certain 
aspects, namely: in the grounds of detention the incidents pertaining to 
the year 1991, besides being remote, were not of that magniture as to 
disrupt public order and the two incidents of 10.2.1993 could be only 
prejudicial to maintenance of law and order; on the date of order of 
detention the petitioner was already in custody in connection with crimes D 
under ss. 147, 148, 302, 307 I.P.~., and there was no question of his being 
released on bail nor had he applied for bail, and therefQi:e the detention 
order was unwarranted; the detaining authority while satisfying itself that 
the petitioner was a 'goonda' relied on some documents which were not 
supplied to the detenue but in the grounds mentioned only some first E 
information reports in the cases which by themselves did not constitute 
sufficient material to declare him to be a 'goonda', as a result of which the 
petitioner could not make an effective representation; there was delay in 
serving the grounds on the detenu. It was also contended that the detention 
was vitiated for the reasons that the grounds did not indicate that the 
detenu could make representation to the detaining authority itself; when 
the representation reached the detaining authority, it should hav.e ex-
amined the sam-e and considered whether it could exercise its power under 
s. 14 and revoke the detention; and the power of the·detaining authority 
does not cease to exist even after approval by the State Government. 
Dismissing the cases, this Court 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. It cannot be said that the activities mentioned in the 
grounds are not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The 
detaining authority in Paragraph 3 of the gr

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