Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu by name Janarthanan @ Jony. He was detained as "Goonda" by the impugned order dated 26-10-2004 under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. The grounds on which the detention order has been made are as follows: Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony is running a Motor Vehicle Driving school in the name of Jony Driving School at Tiruppur. He has been authorised by M/s. Maheswari Agencies, authorised dealer of Yamaha Motor Cycle to get the registration, for the new motor vehicles sold by them to their customers from the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur. On 02-05-2001 Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony, aged 37 years, S/o Thiru Baladhandapani, No.4/19, Ranganathapuram, IInd Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tiruppur, Coimbatore District, produced before the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur a Light Motor Vehicle of TATA make model 2001 for registration in the name of M/s. Hycounts Corporation, No.6-A, Ranganathapuram Extension, 2nd Street, Kongu Main Road, Tiruppur along with an application and connected documents including the letter No. 29620/Tr.-VI/2001-1 Home (Transport-VI) Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai dated 03-04-2001 (Computer Code No. 24363). The said letter was for allotment order of Fancy registration number 6000 in TN 39 Y series to the above said vehicle. On the strength of that Government letter, the said vehicle was assigned with the registration number TN 39 Y 6000. But on verification at a later date, the said Government letter was found to be a forged one. Further, there was an endorsement at page-12 of registration document as if a sum of Rs.6000/- was paid in the Regional Transport Officer's Office, Tiruppur in S.No. 11139 001A on 23-04-2001 towards the prescribed fee for advance registration for Fancy number. On verification, it was also found to be forged, as the said receipt S.No. 11139 001A dated 23-04-2001 was originally relating to the payment of a sum of Rs.15/- at the said office. Thus, Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony has forged the said endorsement by creating the said false document used them as genuine and thereupon cheated the Government of Tamilnadu through the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur to a value of Rs.6,000/-. Thus, Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony has forged the said endorsement by creating the said false document used them as genuine and thereupon cheated the Government of Tamilnadu through the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur to a value of Rs.6,000/-. Hence, the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District in his letter Confdl./4/RTO/TPR dated 14-10-2004. On the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore District, the Inspector of police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur registered a case in CCB Cr.No. 26/2004 U/s 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and sent the FIR along with the original complaint to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur and copies of them to the higher officers concerned. 3. After registering the case, the inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur took up investigation. He examined the complainant and other necessary witnesses. During the course of investigation, it was known that the above Government letter was issued for the allotment of fancy number TN 21 P 0009 to Thiru V.V. Chalapathy of Kanchepuram District. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur arrested the accused Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony on 14-10-2004 at 10-30 PM in front of his house at Ranganathapuram 2nd Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tiruppur and recorded his voluntary confessional statement in the presence of two witnesses 1) Murugesh 2) P. Kudiarasu and produced him before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur on 15-10-2004. The accused was remanded to Judicial custody upto 29-10-2004 and lodged at Central Prison, Coimbatore. 4. The detaining authority, namely, the District Collector, Coimbatore, after satisfying himself that the said Janarthanan @ Jony is habitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such he is a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2 (f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, arrived at a conclusion that by committing the above said grave offences, the said Janarthanan @ Jony created fear, panic and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of that area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He also concluded that the offence committed by him is punishable under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. He also concluded that the offence committed by him is punishable under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. After satisfying that the materials placed before him that the said Janarthanan @ Jony is a "Goonda" and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he was detained under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982. 5. On earlier occasion, the said detention order was challenged through one B. Sivakumar, brother of the detenu in H.C.P.No. 1485/2004. This Court, by order dated 16-2-2005, after finding that no valid ground to interfere with the said order of detention, dismissed the said petition. However, claiming that certain valid points invalidating the detention order were neither taken nor urged nor any finding rendered in respect of the same, the petitioner, wife of the detenu has filed the present petition for quashing of the very same order. 6. Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate, for respondents. 7. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions: i) There is no public order warranting the detenu to be described as "Goonda" under Act 14/1982; ii) Even according to the respondents, the alleged occurrence, namely, forgery of certain Government documents took place on 23-4-2001, whereas the case was registered only on 14-10-2004, after a delay of more than 3 years; hence the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay; iii) There is no proximity in this case and in the absence of any adequate materials, the detention order is liable to be quashed; iv) There was no proper intimation to the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate refuted all the charges by placing necessary materials. 8. Let us consider the contentions raised by learned senior counsel for petitioner one by one. Learned Government Advocate refuted all the charges by placing necessary materials. 8. Let us consider the contentions raised by learned senior counsel for petitioner one by one. As regards the first contention relating to no public order involved and invoking of Act 14 of 1982 is not warranted, though detention order was passed describing the detenu as Goonda based on the complaint of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur, dated 14-10-2004, which was registered a case in CCB Crime No. 26/2004 for offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C., the grounds of detention make it clear that the detenu had involved in committing fraud and forging certain documents and cheating the Office of the Regional Transport Officer at Tiruppur on various dates between 12-10-2001 and 7-06-2004. The adverse case in Crime No. 25/2004 for offences under Sections 120(B), 468, 471 and 420 IPC relates to the said period namely 12-10-2001 to 7-10-2004. It further shows that the detenu came to adverse notice on 34 instances. It also shows that Mr. F.S. Rodrigo, the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur and the complainant in Crime No. 25/2004 of District Crime Branch, Coimbatore has stated in his further statement, recorded by the Inspector of Police, Karumathampatty Police Station, that the verification of his office records as on 15-10-2004 would make out a total fraud of Rs.60 lakhs. Copy of his statement has been furnished in pages 21 to 33 of the booklet issued to the detenu. The grounds of detention also show that though the offence complained of in the ground case dates back to 02-05-2001, it came to the knowledge of the complainant (Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur only on detect of this complaint and to the sponsoring authority only on the date of FIR, registered in Tiruppur Central Crime Branch Crime No.26/2004. 9. The grounds of detention also show that the letter of the Government in No. 29620/Tr.-VI/2001-1 Home (Transport-VI) Department dated 03-04-2001 with Computer Code No. 24363 was forged one. As rightly pointed by the learned Government Advocate, the degree of evidence for passing a detention order need not be so much clinching against the detenu as required in the trial of the criminal case against him before the Criminal Court. As rightly pointed by the learned Government Advocate, the degree of evidence for passing a detention order need not be so much clinching against the detenu as required in the trial of the criminal case against him before the Criminal Court. Page 169 of the booklet supplied to the detenu shows that an amount of Rs.15/- had been remitted into the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur as per S.No. 11139-001A dated 23-04-2001, but the detenu has fabricated a false document for Rs.6,000/- into the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur as per the same receipt number with the same date and time. It was also available in the booklet in page 173. It is not in dispute that creation of false documents or a portion of the false documents amounts to an offence of forgery and those copies of documents are available in pages 173 and 175 of the booklet. The detaining authority has considered and discussed at length all the documents placed before him by the sponsoring authority and was satisfied that the gross violation of the law by cheating and fabricating the Government documents and serious offences committed by the detenu were sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace. We are also satisfied that the detaining authority was very well aware of the relevant fact that the detenu is habitually committing "crimes" and also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority was also satisfied that by forging and cheating the Government documents relating to various persons who intended to acquire or purchase new vehicles, created fear, panic and feeling of insecurity in their minds in that area (Tiruppur), thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority has also satisfied that the offences committed by the detenu are punishable under Chapter XVII of Indian Penal Code. The detaining authority has also satisfied that the offences committed by the detenu are punishable under Chapter XVII of Indian Penal Code. Considering the details furnished in Crime No. 25/2004 which related to the period between 12-10-2001 and 07-06-2004 pertaining to cheating several persons and the complaint dated 14-10-2004 in the ground case, as well as the prejudicial activities indulged by him and there is likelihood of indulging in such activities in future as well, we are satisfied that the detaining authority is fully justified and well within his power in detaining the detenu as "Goonda" under Act 14 of 1982. In the light of chain of events and details referred to in the grounds of detention, it cannot be claimed that there is no proximity to the initial occurrence which had taken place on 23-4-2001. The contrary contention is liable to be rejected. 10. Though an argument was advanced that there was delay in passing the detention order, for the discussion relating to the first contention and in view of chain of events stated in the adverse case Crime No. 25/2004 as well as ground case Crime No. 26/2004 both on the file of District Crime Branch, Coimbatore District, and considering the number of persons involved, forgery of several documents, that too Government receipts in respect of several registration books, we are satisfied that there is no delay in passing the order of detention. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that it is not a case of solitary instance, but it refers to forging several documents, manipulating and cheating records of the Regional Transport Officer, Tirupur on various dates, making the intending purchasers to register 34 new motor vehicles with new registration number without actually remitting registration fees and life tax and caused wrongful loss to the Government of Tamil Nadu, besides creating fear and panic among the intending purchasers. In such circumstances, particularly taking note of the volume and nature of work involved, we are unable to accept the contention that there is a delay in passing the detention order. On the other hand, considering the chain of instances, we hold that there is no delay. The contrary contention is liable to be rejected. 11. In such circumstances, particularly taking note of the volume and nature of work involved, we are unable to accept the contention that there is a delay in passing the detention order. On the other hand, considering the chain of instances, we hold that there is no delay. The contrary contention is liable to be rejected. 11. Though an argument was advanced that there was no material available for detaining the detenu as "Goonda", as discussed above, the adverse case Crime No.25/2004 and ground case Crime No. 26/2004 on the file of District Crime Branch, Coimbatore and all the details furnished in the grounds of detention amply proove that the detaining authority was possessed with required materials for clamping the detenu as "Goonda". For the same reasons, as mentioned above, the said contention is also liable to be rejected. Though Mr. B. Kumar has relied on certain decisions, in the light of the abundant factual details available in the grounds of detention and on going through the same, we are of the view that they are not helpful to the case on hand. 12. Finally, an argument was advanced that no proper intimation relating to clamping of detention was informed to the family member of the detenu, in the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Coimbatore, first respondent herein, particularly in para 14, it is specifically stated that the fact of passin of the detention order against Janarthanan alias Jony in Crl.M.P.No. 20/G/2004/E4 and his lodging in the Central Prison, Coimbatore were informed to the petitioner, wife of the detenu in his letter dated 26-10-2004 and the same was served on her on 27-10-2004 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, (1) C. Vajravelu, Village Administrative Officer and (2) M. Kuppusamy, Village Administrative Assistant of Thottipalayam village. In view of the above categorical information, the said contention is also liable to be rejected. 13. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the abundant materials in the grounds of detention, we are satisfied that the detaining authority was fully justified in detaining the detenu as "Goonda" under Act 14 of 1982. In view of the above categorical information, the said contention is also liable to be rejected. 13. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the abundant materials in the grounds of detention, we are satisfied that the detaining authority was fully justified in detaining the detenu as "Goonda" under Act 14 of 1982. We are also satisfied that the detaining authority has considered all the relevant materials and possessed with the details regarding habituality of the detenu in committing crimes, acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, creating fear and panic and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of public in the area (Tiruppur), and rightly passed the impugned order of detention. We are in agreement with his conclusion. There is no valid ground for interference. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.