TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Madras High Court quashing the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Virudhunagar, 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 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 indicated that the order of remand was brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority before he passed the order of detention on 26.6.1998. The High Court perused the original file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The order, therefore, is clearly unsustainable. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent- detenu in spite of notice. We find that there is no dispute regarding the production of the order of remand dated 24.6.1998 when the sponsoring authority appeared before the detaining authority who passed the order of detention on 26/6/1998. As a matter of fact in the grounds of detention it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly set aside. The residual question is whether it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to surrender for serving remaining period of detention in view of passage of time. As was noticed in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Ors. (2000 (3) SCC 409), and State of T.N. and Another v. Kethiyan Perumal (2004 (8) SCC 780), it is for the appropriate State to consider whether the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
