Santosh Hedge, J.@mdashThe petitioner who is under detention has preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiachallenging the said detention.
2. While the petitioner was a remand prisoner in CrimeNo. 1466/2001 of Vadapalani Police Station, he was detainedunder Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention ofBootleggers, Drug-Offenders, (Forest-Offenders), Goondas,Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers for Preventingtheir Dangerous Activities Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Public Order, Act (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by an order ofdetention dated 18.2.2002 made by the Commissioner of Police,Madras, 2nd respondent herein. The main ground of detentionare that the petitioner was indulging in offences under Section67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 4 and 6of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act,1986 and u/s 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. On receipt of the detention order in the Central Prison, Madras, the petitioner informed the detaining authority that heis not able to red and writ Tamil, therefore, he is not in aposition to effectively represent against the grounds of detention supplied to him. In reply to this letter, the 2ndrespondent stated that the statement of the petitioner that he does not read and writ Tamil is false. At any rate, to be on the safer side, he supplied to him the copies of the grounds of detention and the annexure enclosed therewith in English.
4. His representation to the detaining authority as also to theState Government (respondent No.1) having failed thepetitioner has preferred this writ petition.
5. The first contention raised by the petitioner in this writpetition is that while he was a remand prisoner and before theorder of detention dated 18.2.2002 was made by the 2ndrespondent, he had written a letter from the jail to the 2ndrespondent alleging that the Assistant Commissioner of Police,Vadapalani had demanded a bribe of Rs. 5 lacs from him,threatening that if he failed to give the bribe then he wouldmake out false case against him and arrest him. It is also statedbefore us that in the said letter the petitioner had complained tothe 2nd respondent that because of the said failure to pay thebribe he was falsely implicated and arrested and the said policeofficer was taking steps to see that the petitioner is not releasedform the jail. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued beforeus that it is pursuant to this refusal to pay bribe, the very sameofficer has sponsored the case of the petitioner for detentionunder the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. He further submits fromthe register maintained by the Jail Superintendent (respondentNo.3), that it is clear that this letter of the petitioner had reachedrespondent No.3, however, he has not taken note of the samewhile passing the order of detention, consequently his detentionorder suffers from the vice of non application of mind to vitalmaterial. The respondent No.2 in his reply filed before thisCourt has denied the receipt of any such letter, but since thelearned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on thedespatch register of the Central Prison, Madras, to satisfyourselves as to this fact we summoned the said register andexamined the same with the assistance of the counsel for theparties. After perusing the said register, we notice that there isan entry dated 28.1.2002 in regard to a letter despatched by the3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent, which the petitioner claimsas his letter complaining against the said police officer. Alongwith the register, we have also received a copy of the letterreceived by the Commissioner on 28.1.2002 from the 3rdrespondent and on perusal of the same it is seen that this letteris written by the respondent No.3 to the 2nd respondent in regardto the arrest of one escaped prisoner Ravi and this letter hasnothing to do with the complaint allegedly made by thepetitioner to the 2nd respondent. Having perused this material,we are satisfied that the petitioner has not been able to convinceus that, as a matter of fact, any such letter dated 28.1.2001 wassent by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, in ouropinion, there is no substance in the argument addressed as tothe non-consideration of the letter dated 28.1.2001. Hence, thesame is rejected.
6. Learned counsel then contended that the sponsoringauthority had placed irrelevant and extraneous material beforethe detaining authority some of which have been considered bythe detaining authority, hence, his subjective satisfaction isvitiated by the consideration of irrelevant and extraneousmaterial. In support of this contention, the learned counselpointed out from the pleadings in the writ petition that thedetaining authority has taken into consideration three letters oneof which is dated 2.2.2002 written by one Ms. J. Bhanu. The saidletter states that the petitioner has indulged in heinous crime,hence the police should take all possible steps to get thepetitioner punished and to see that he is not released on bail.Acopy of this letter has been furnished to the detenu. The 2ndrespondent in his counter affidavit filed before the Court hasstated that he has taken note of the contents of this letter. Wefail to see how the contents of this letter in any manner isextraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of forming an opinionas to the detention of the petitioner. The argument of thelearned counsel is that this is not a letter which was eitherrecovered during the course of investigation or a statementmade to the investigating officer, therefore, such letter from apro bono public is likely to prejudice the mind of the detainingauthority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed tosatisfy us that the detaining authority is not entitle to look intoany material which is not though such material may be relevantpolice investigation, even though such material may be relevantfor the purpose of forming a subjective satisfaction. From thecontents of this letter, we find these are related to the groundsof detention, therefore, we cannot accept this contention of thepetitioner also
7. The next argument of the learned counsel with regard tothe consideration of extraneous material is that, the detainingauthority has considered two other letters one of which is dated14.2.2002 written by one Mrs. Saraswathi and another letterdated 1.1.2002 written by Dr. S. Nagalakshmi to the policeauthorities. The signatories of these letters claiming to be officebearers of certain women's organisations had pleaded with thepolice authorities to take steps to see that the petitioner is notreleased on bail and if the police authorities failed to do so, themembers of their association would go on 'Dharna'. In thecounter affidavit filed by the detaining authority, he has statedthat he has not taken into consideration the contents of thisletter. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that if theseletters are not considered by the detaining authority then supplyof the copies of this letter along with the grounds of detentionwould have misled the petitioner in making an effectiverepresentation. Therefore, the detention should be held to beinvalid. We do no accept this argument either. Mere fact thatcopies of the some of the materials placed before the detainingauthority was included in the list of documents given to thedetenu ipso facto does not, in any manner, affect the petitioner'sright to make a proper representation against his detention. Thecontents of this letter, if at all, read by the detenu would not, inany manner, mislead him or would confuse him because thecontents of this letter are similar to the letter of Ms. Bhanu and itindicates that the police should take steps to prevent thepetitioner from coming out on bail. Therefore, these letterscannot, in any manner cause confusion in the mind of thedetenu. In our opinion, this complaint of the petitioner has to berejected.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended thatsome of the documents referred and relied upon in the groundsof detention have not been supplied to the detenu, hence, thereis a non-communication of grounds of detention. In support ofthis contention the learned counsel relied on the fact that thedetaining authority while passing the order of detention hasreferred to the bail application of the petitioner moved beforethe 17th M.M.Court, Saidapet, Madras and also the applicationfor bail filed by the petitioner before the Principal SessionsCourt which were dismissed by the said courts, copies of theseaccording to the petitioner, were not supplied to the petitionerbecause of which the petitioner could not make an effective representation. From the perusal of these documents, it is seenthat the detaining authority has made a reference to the same inthe course of narration of fact, and he has not based or foundedhis subjective satisfaction on the contents of the saiddocuments. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not necessary for thedetaining authority to give copies of these documents which areonly in the nature of narration of facts.
9. The learned counsel then contended that there is a totalnon-communication of grounds and the order of detentioninasmuch as the same is supplied to him in a language notknown to the petitioner. He submitted even though some of thecopies of the document in Tamil was furnished to him on hisdemand on 28.2.2002 the same was far beyond the requiredtime period and because of this belated supply of the documentshe was prevented from making an effective representation tothe detaining authority. In this regard, we notice on receipt ofthe order and grounds of detention with enclosures, the detenuhad written a letter to the 2nd respondent intimating him of hisinability to read and write Tamil. In reply the detainingauthority has denied the same immediately. However, he, alongwith the said letter, has supplied the copies of the saiddocuments on 28.2.2002. It is true that the detaining authorityin the order of detention has mentioned that if the detenu sochooses he may make a representation to him before theconfirming authority, namely, the State Government confirmshis order of detention. The detaining authority in his affidavitbefore this Court has stated that he received the representationof the petitioner and considered and rejected the same on4.3.2002. therefore, it is clear that the petitioner had sufficienttime to make a representation to the detaining authority. At thisstage, it may be relevant to notice that even though the detenuhad no legal right to make a representation to the detainingauthority, still the same was given to him and he did use thisright, which representation was considered at an early date bythe detaining authority and was rejected. By the delay of twodays in furnishing the translated copies of the detenu, there wasno prejudice caused to the petitioner in making hisrepresentation effectively to the detaining authority.
10. In the exercise of his constitutional right and petitionerhas made a separate representation to the State Governmentwell within the time allowed, by which time he had received thetranslated copies. This representation was considered andrejected by the State Government. Though the petitionerinitially questioned the delay in disposal of this representationby the State Government, but after some arguments the learnedcounsel did not press this argument further.
11. The learned counsel then contended that there are someTamil transcripts in the grounds of detention which were nottranslated and given to him when the translated copies of otherdocument were given. We have perused these Tamiltranscripts which indicates the conversation the petitioner hadin Tamil with others. The statements of those persons whoconversed with the petitioner have been supplied to thepetitioner which contains the English translation of these verywords. Therefore, it is futile to contend that non translation ofthe actual words spoken by the petitioner himself could haveprejudiced the petitioner in making his representation.
12. It is lastly contended that the State Government wasprejudiced by the opinion rendered by the detaining authority.This argument is built around the fact that the StateGovernment sought para wise remark from the 2nd respondentwhile dealing with the petitioner's representation. In responseto that the 2nd respondent while sending his remarks in the lastpara stated that the petitioner's representation may be rejected.This recommendation according to the learned counsel hasweighed in the mind of the confirming authority to rejectpetitioner's representation. We are unable to accept thisargument also. It is normal under the rules of business for theGovernment to seek the remarks of the officer against whoseorder a representation is made to the Government. As a matterof fact, if such remarks are not called for and statutoryrepresentations are rejected summarily by the Government itwould be considered as a rejection without application of mind.Therefore, in cases where the considering authority feels thatthe remarks of the officer who made the original order isnecessary then such superior authority must call for suchremarks. In the instant case, the representation filed by thedetenu did raise certain factual points which without thecomment of the detaining authority might have been difficult tobe dealt with. Therefore, in our opinion, the authorityconsidering the representation had justly called for the remarks.The next limb of this argument that the State Government wasinfluenced by the remarks of the detaining authority to dismissthe representation is too far fetched. In the instant case, theGovernment of Tamil Nadu has been authorised to be theauthority to consider the representation against the detentionorder made by the Commissioner of Police who is subordinateto it. Therefore, to presume that such higher authority would beinfluenced by an observation made by the subordinate to suchan extent as to surrender its independent authority is to demeanthe independence of authority exercised by the StateGovernment, hence this argument is recorded here only to berejected.
13. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and thesame is dismissed.
