STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. v. KETHIYAN PERUMAL

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 322

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER

Case summary

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. v. KETHIYAN PERUMAL.pdf

Judgment text

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. v. KETHIYAN PERUMAL OCTOBER' 11, 2004 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C. K. THAKKER, JJ. ] Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities ofBoot leggars, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982: Sections 3(1) and SA-Detention Order-Set aside by High Court as the Forest Officer's Report did not mention that the activities ofdetenue dangerous to public order whereas in an identical matter on basis of the said report detention upheld-Legality of-Held: High Court failed to take note of the fact that factual distinction·sought to be brought about by detenu not supportable and also the effect ofthe confessional statement and the background facts-Further, the Forest Officer's Report clearly mentions that the activities of detenu prejudicially affected public order- Also in view ofsection 5A an extraneous and irrelevant ground does not affect validity ofdetention order- Hence, order of High Court set aside.

Section 3(1)-Preventive Detention-To undergo remaining period of detention in view of passage of time-Held: In all cases passage of time cannot be a ground for not sending the detenu to serve remaining period of detention-State has to consider effect ofthe objectionable acts, its continuity and existence ofa proximate temporal nexus between the period ofdetention indicated in the order by which detenu was required to be detained and the date when deten:t is required to be detained pursuant to the Appellate Order. K was detained under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggars, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabber~ Act, 1982. Respondent-detenu's wife challenged the detention order on the ground that the Forest Officer's Report did not anywhere indicate that the activities of the detenu has been highly dangerous to public order. State contended that in Mrs. U.

Vijaylakshmi 's case, same Forest Officer's Report was referred and detention order was upheld in view of section SA of the Act that an Jn STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. KETHIYAN PERUMAL 323 extraneous and irrelevant ground does not affect validity of the detention order. High Court distinguished Mrs U. Vijaylakshmi 's case though it was with reference to the same report of the Forest Officer since the points · which were presently urged were not taken before High Court in the earlier case. It allowed the petition on the ground that the Detaining Authority took into consideration extraneous matters while recording the 1 finding about unlawful activities of the detenu. ... ' ' · ! r ,. • Appellant-State and Detaining Authority contended. that the;High Court accepted the prayer of the detenu on the ground that.

theiForest: Officer's report did not specifically refer to the alleged unlawful activities aspect; or that the impugned acts were highly dangero'lls to public' ~'rder; that there was a confession of respondent No. 1 showing clear-admissidi{ about the unlawful activities; and that the High Court did not keep in view • • ~ - I i I-· j • ' ; ' , ' : I rt j' ·~ 'r l 1 , . , l the effect of Section 5A of the Act. · · , ,. . :· , _ . , Allowing the appeals, the Co. urt; ·.. ' HELD 1. In both Mrs. U. Vijayalakshmi's* case and the instant case the Forest Officer's report was common. High Co~~t did n'ot t~ke 'a~te of the fact that the factual distinction sought1to be brought about -by the ". J'i, I• l -_JQ. 1'-. r l '··: · · ,; -... ; • ..... • ,-, . • f"-'•.. • 1. ,_ J4 I• detenu is not supportable. Effect of the confessional statement . and the ,1 · I; J,. j { · background facts have not been taken note of. The factual mistake, committed by High Court by;observing that. there,was:no m.

ention in the E' Forest Officer's Report regarding activities being highly dangerous to public order, is not 'sustainabte:ln' fact,-it'clearly' mentions thatactivities of-the detenu' prejuCliCially affected; public''or'der·. · The- destruction of ecoltigical system would be highly :,.... :. : ·. ·~ -i t_): · :~· · ~! · -~··1 . ·t;··· ·_,_;:r. tl"". :~·-... ·. ,.... r;1;. 1·,jiJ .... 1i Ob q ' ·,r;,~. :· ,Hence·Heel that we should stop:by a! Hriearis tlie' indiSctimirrate "··; r , felling bffrees in1VellowDistricUn the,lhtere'st ofpublic·bec·ause·the ". ;. . ;if.. ecblogical. 1system is affected' itr a :ma11ner,prejudiciaP-tO'·the·puolic • ; I: -,•t l''. ~. i 1 • . > The factual mistake, committed by the High Court by observing that B ·.... ;_ there ,was no mention. regarding, activities being•highly(dangerous to 'public order;,is ,notisustainable,' in view ·of. the details indicated and· clear· mention: It·was :categoricalLy. stated;~haMhe. destruction.

of ecological:system'would·be' highly dangerous to public order. In any event. the:effect 6fSection :SA-of the: Act cannot be lost sight of The High Court was clearly in error in holding 1 1 1 1 11 B tfi~t the''case; His'to. 'tie ·n3teci'-thatlii1D: ·ViJ~ytilaksh'mtc71se '(supra)·r! lis' cduft:l ;o:·:···u,:41bf:Jthe-- grourtds'of. aeterition:'It ·E/nianifesf· fronFthe· facts st~ted in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention that the emphasis is ·tWofdld:·' (I) that to profit frorr. the high price fetched by sandal wood ! n the 1 1 . Q-; nGiJ~i. "iif~gni IB1"rket',niliit1t 'reihn~'. M~~n~aiA. wdria tfJe;1'i5' 6nrlthe i~c~ease, 1 1 ·, i . '"~ th@fe~yibaa~(ing Widis~'read dalfge'r tbithe! e! (ol6gi~al systel~ a~cf1'~~~' 0 1 1 rioq·-n br'~t~vJhtfi:q G6fJril'rl16Jf -~t'na·~c2) t1iahli~ huge'~on-~y··r~l1iilg Into' 11 d~• Ytrn"PiaAd~<hff'i1it? a1s rriilZeil:werii's'usc~pfiti1e 1<. /drin-~iri~ ~n<l gcilnbi'irlg,! / thereby converting the poor and innocenttfibals into anti~sdcl~ls.

so" Iji hri~ /N,:i~~i~·~sLnrBtW~P,~ct is conc~r~~? - w~ find from grou11ds of 0 1 th~ ;) H STATE"OFTAMILNADUv. KETHIYANPERUMAL[PASAYAT. J. ] s27 ···". ' ,i·"deteHtion thattlie &ienJ was iii. volve'd in two slmilkr casd;iri'ttie past '"'•' ' arid the impugned order' of detention was pa~~ed after he 'was found - "'~"' ''io' have indtilgdi'in 'sYmifar activity or( fst 'rviay; 1992. As~is"clear I , ,;from''the ex1pfanat'i0n 'to'Sectio'n' 2(a)'extracted 'earli~r,'\vid'espread 1 1 ' ' l(:fanggi- to' the' 'ecological' system" must be deerried fo 'affect public '· . ' order adv'ersely witI1in the'm'eanirig of that expression in Section 2(a) ;13 ' ''of the Act:Counsel submitt~d that'althotigtt'ii: is asserte'cl in paragraph "' '4\:lf the' grounds of detention that the 'illicit cutting and ·removal of ) , ... - .

l sahdal'w'ooci tree§' from 'the reserved forest' area causes widespread ::J: ''''·danger to ihe e;cologic~I system and disturbs the deficqte equilibrium 1 ·'·' :_,' 'thereof,'ih'ere is riothing'on' record tci sliow thatthis assertion·is'well 1 "'' ' ·•t'oUnded. We'are' afraid\. Ve cannot accept this s'ubfuissio~ made:by ihe '. 1 'fl ··-. · .. · ~ · . -• f ~ • · . '· • ' · • t . - •· ' nc · - ~ learned counsel for the detehu. Itis'manifest from paragraph 4 of the grounds ofdetention that this view was founded oinlfo 6pinio1f:of the District Forest Officer, Vellore. Once it is found that the ground of r L /. 1 ~ r 1 • detention is one recognized by sub-section (I) ·of Section. j of the tre ",. ;1"Act, :i~ is,not for this Court to probe into the correctness ofthe alleged facts since this Court has a limited role in the matter of examining the validity of the detention order.

Counsel for the detenu next contended that the second aspect of paragraph 4 shows that extraneous considerations weighed with the detaining authority in passing t! "le impugned detention order. He submitted that it is too remote to think that tribals resort to drinking, gambling and turn anti-socials merely because some extra money falls into their hands. Assuming without deciding that this con: ~ntion is well founded, we are of the opinion that Section SA of the Act takes care ofit. Even if we were to hold that this ground is extraneous or irrelevant, that would not. affect the validity of the detention order as Section SA was introduced precisely to take care of such a situation. We, therefore, do not see any merit in the second contention also. " The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1999 involves identical issues.

On both aspects factual as well as legal, in both the appeals, the High Court's judgments are not sustainable and are, therefore, set aside. The residual question is whether it would be appropriate to direct the respondent in each case to surrender for serving remaining period ofdetention in view of passage of time. As was noticed in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union ofIndia and Ors. , [2000] 3 SCC 409, it is for the appropriate State to consider whether the impact of the acts, which led to the order of detention still survives and whether it would be desirable to send back the detenu for serving remainder period of detention. Necessary order in this regard shall be passed within two months by the appellant - State. Passage of time in all cases cannot be a ground not to send the detenu to serve remainder of the period of detention. It all depends on the facts ofthe act and the contin! lance or otherwise of the effect of the objectionable acts.

The State shall consider whether there still exists a proxim~te 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 to the appellate order. Appeals are allowed. N. J. Appeals allowed.