M. Valarmathy Vs. State Rep. by the Secretary.

M. Valarmathy. vs State Rep. by the Secretary.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 09, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/925700

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/925700
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: D. Hariparanthaman, J.
Decided On: May 09, 2012
Case Number: Writ Petition (MD) No.6728 of 2012
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.] Constitution of India - Article 226 -- The petitioner's husband is detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders,...

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M. Valarmathy.

Respondent

State Rep. by the Secretary.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982

Excerpt

[d. hariparanthaman, j.] constitution of india - article 226 -- the petitioner's husband is detained under the tamil nadu prevention of dangerous activities of boot-leggers, drug offenders, forest offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders, sand offenders, slum-grabbers and video pirates act, 1982 (tamil nadu act 14 of 1982)......offenders, slum-grabbers and video pirates act, 1982 (tamil nadu act 14 of 1982). before his detention, he was elected as a member of 18th ward in karattalaganpatti village panchayat council, dindigul district on 21.10.2011. he was not able to attend two meetings in view of his detention. in these circumstances, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner's husband to attend the council meeting to be held on 16.05.2012. in support of his contention, the learned for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this court in velu vs. state of tamil nadu and another reported in (2002 (3) mlj 708).2. a perusal of the judgment would show that it is is in fact against the petitioner. para 3 of the said judgment reads as follows:-3. in my considered opinion, when the petitioner is detained under preventive detention by a competent authority, namely the first respondent herein, taking into consideration the whole stock of the issue that public order is adversely affected very now and then by the dangerous activities of the petitioner, which are in the opinion of the detention authority prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it may not be proper for this court to permit the petitioner to attend the council meeting of sembakkam panchayat union council to be held on 22.08.2002 on an apprehension that if the petitioner absents to attend the council meeting to be held on 22.08.2002 at sembakkam panchayat union council, he ceases to be the member of the union council as per sec.38(j) of the act.

Full Judgment

Prayer

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner's husband to attend the council meeting to be held on 16.05.2012 at Dindigul Panchayath Union Council, Dindigul District with police escorts from the Central Prison at Salem.

ORDER

1. The petitioner's husband is detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Before his detention, he was elected as a member of 18th ward in Karattalaganpatti village panchayat council, Dindigul District on 21.10.2011. He was not able to attend two meetings in view of his detention. In these circumstances, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner's husband to attend the council meeting to be held on 16.05.2012. In support of his contention, the learned for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this Court in Velu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in (2002 (3) MLJ 708).

2. A perusal of the Judgment would show that it is is in fact against the petitioner. Para 3 of the said judgment reads as follows:-

3. In my considered opinion, when the petitioner is detained under preventive detention by a competent authority, namely the first respondent herein, taking into consideration the whole stock of the issue that public order is adversely affected very now and then by the dangerous activities of the petitioner, which are in the opinion of the detention authority prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it may not be proper for this Court to permit the petitioner to attend the council meeting of Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council to be held on 22.08.2002 on an apprehension that if the petitioner absents to attend the council meeting to be held on 22.08.2002 at Sembakkam Panchayat Union Council, he ceases to be the member of the Union Council as per Sec.38(j) of the Act.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties M. Valarmathy. vs State Rep. by the Secretary. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge D. Hariparanthaman, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Tamil Nadu Prevention of...

Constitution