Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1864 (MAD)

Namachivayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Another

2003-11-17

P.K.MISRA, T.V.MASILAMANI

body2003
Judgment :- P.K. MISRA, J. Heard Mr.S. Natarajan for the petitioner and Mr.M.K. Subramanian, Government Advocate, for the respondents. 2. The order of preventive detention dated 9.1.2003 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirucirappalli under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is being challenged in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in respect of the present petitioner as well as another person by name Siva, the orders of detention have been passed on the very same allegations. Subsequently, the Advisory Board by its proceedings dated 7.2.2003 opined that there was no sufficient cause for the detention of Siva. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same reasoning is also applicable to the case of the present petitioner, and therefore, the order of detention is to be set aside. 4. Proceedings of the Advisory Board in respect of Siva has been produced before us. That order indicates that out of the two adverse cases relating to Siva, the name of Siva had not been indicated in the FIR but he was implicated only by way of subsequent statement made by the witnesses. In the second adverse case, an affidavit has been filed by the complainant indicating that no such occurrence had taken place. The Advisory Board has got every jurisdiction to go into the factual aspects and come to a particular conclusion, but the High Court while deciding a Writ of Habeas Corpus, has no jurisdiction to sit as an appellate authority and re-appreciate the materials. Merely because the Advisory Board came to a particular conclusion relating to one of the detenus, it cannot be said that the order of detention, which is passed on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has become vitiated. The Proceedings of the Advisory Board relating to the case of Siva clearly indicates that name of Siva had not been indicated in the FIR and that was considered to be a ground to set aside the detention order. It is of course true that in the second adverse case, which is a case where the accused were the detenu and Siva, the complainant has sworn to an affidavit before the Advisory Board stating that no such occurrence had taken place. It is of course true that in the second adverse case, which is a case where the accused were the detenu and Siva, the complainant has sworn to an affidavit before the Advisory Board stating that no such occurrence had taken place. However, the subsequent statement of the complainant is not a ground to come to a conclusion that the detaining authority had exceeded his jurisdiction to pass the order of detention. Whether such an allegation was unfounded or not, it could be appreciated either by the Board or by the trial court when trial takes place, but it cannot be said that the detaining authority should not have relied upon such allegation. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In course of submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a fresh representation has been made, which is yet to be disposed of. Since such a representation had been made after filing of the present writ petition and factual position is not available on record, we are not in a position to consider such contention. However, it would be open to the petitioner to file fresh Habeas Corpus Petition if such representation is not disposed of or if there has been any delay in disposal of the representation. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observation, this Habeas Corpus petition is disposed of.