SUBRAMANIANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

                    [2012] 1 S.C.R. 985


                      SUBRAMANIAN                               A
                            v.
             STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2012)
                   FEBRUARY 21, 2012
                                                                 B
     [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAME~WAR, JJ.]

    Preventive detention:

     Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of c
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers
and Video Pirates Act, 1982 - ss. 3 and 2(f) - Detention order
u/s. 3, against the detenue - Habeas Corpus petition -
Dismissed by the High Court - On appeal, held: Detaining 0
Authority, on consideration of materials placed found that the
detenu is habitually committing crimes and a/so acting in a
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as
such he is a 'goonda' as contemplated uls. 2(f) - Detenu
armed with 'aruva/', along with his associates armed with 'katta' E
came to the shop of the complainant, threatened him and also
damaged the properties available in the shop - It cannot be
said that there was non-application of the mind to the relevant
material by the Detaining Authority; and that there was non-
consideration of the representation of the detenu by the
Detaining Aµthority which vitiates the entire detention order - F
Conclusion bf the Detaining Authority that the detenu was a
habitual offender cannot be considered to be based on stale
instances - All the incidents mentioned in the grounds of
detention clearly substantiate the subjective satisfaction
arrived at by the Detaining Authority as to how the acts of the G
 detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order -
 Thus, the High Court rightly upheld the detention order.

     In the instant case, the ground case incident arose
                             985                                 H
    986      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A out of the land dispute between the detenu and the
  complainant. The complaint was filed with the police that
  the detenu armed with aruval (sickle) along with his
  associates apart from threatening the complainant
  caused damages to the STD booth. Prior to the said
B incident the dentue was involved in cases in the years
  2008 and 2010. Respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police
  passed a detention order against the detenu under
  Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
  Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest
c Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand
  Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
  holding him to be a goonda noticing his involvement in
  the said case as well as past cases. The appellant filed a
  representation and the same was rejected. Aggrieved, the
  appellant (father of detenu) filed a Habeas Corpus Petition
0
  and the High Court dismissed the same. Therefore, the
  appellant filed the instant appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

E       HELD: 1.1 The court does not interfere with the
  subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority
  except in exceptional and extremely limited grounds. The
  court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the
  Detaining Authority when the grounds of detention are
F precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant, that sufficiency
  of grounds is not for the Court but for the Detaining
  Authority for the formation of subjective satisfaction that
  the detention of a person with a view to preventing him
  from acting in any manner prejudicial to public order is
G required and that such satisfaction is subjective and not
  objective. The object of the law of preventive detention
  is not punitive but only preventive and further that the
  action of the executive in detaining a person being only
  precautionary, normally, the matter has necessarily to be
H left to the discretion of the executive authority. It is not
 SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 987


practicable to lay down ob!ective rules of conduct in an     A
exhaustive manner. The satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority, the.-efore, is considered to be of primary
importance with certain latitude in the exercise of its
discretion. [Para 11] [996-B-E]
                                                             B
    1.2 The Detaining Authority, on consideration of
materials placed found that the accused caused damage
to both public and private properties, threatened the
public and also created a situation of panic among the
public. The Detaining Authority was satisfied that the       C
detenu 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 the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest
Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand          D
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.
The Detaining Authority also found that there is a
compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him
from indulging in such activities in future which are
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. [Paras 9 -   E
1O] [994-D-F; 995-E-F]

    1.3 The detenu, armed with 'aruval', along with his
associates, armed with 'katta' came to the place of the
complainant. The detenu abused the complainant in filthy     F
language and threatened to murder him. His associates
also threatened him. The detenu not only threatened the
complainant with weapon like 'aruval' but also damaged
the properties available in the shop. When the
complainant questioned the detenu and his associates,        G
the detenu slapped him on his face. When the
complainant raised an alarm for rescue, on the arrival of
general public in and around, they were also threatened
by the detenu and his associates that they would kill
them. It is also seen from the grounds of detention that     H
    988     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A because of the threat by the detenu and his associates
  by showing weapons, the nearby shop keepers closed
  their shops out of fear and auto drivers took their autos
  from their stand and left the place. According to the
  Detaining Authority, the above scene created a panic
B among the public. In such circumstances, the scene
  created by the detenu and his associates cannot be
  termed as only law and order problem but it is public
  order as assessed by the Detaining Authority who is
  supposed to safeguard and protect the interest of public.
c [Para 13] [997-B-F]
         1.4 The submission that the accused had obtained
    regular bail in all the criminal cases referred to in the
    detention order and not anticipatory bail, and thus, there
    is non-application of the mind to the relevant material by
D   the Detaining Authority, is factually incorrect. The said
    submission was made only now before this Court as an
    afterthought. A perusal of the impugned order of the High
    Court clearly shows that the only contention before the
    High Court was that the detenu got regular bail in Crime
E   No. 727 of 2010 but the Detaining Authority wrongly
    mentioned the same as anticipatory bail. Further, no
    specific ground was raised in the SLP. The only ground
    is that the copy of the anticipatory bail order in Crime No.
    727 of 2010 was not given to the detenu which is also
F   contrary to the record since it is specifically stated so in
    the detention order and averred in the counter affidavit
    that all the materials were duly furnished to the detenu.
    There is no denial of the same by filing rejoinder. Further,
    the detenu ha'd obtained anticipatory bail in the cases
G   referred to in the detention order including in Crime No.
    727 of 2010. [Para 14] [997-G-H; 998-A-C][

         1.5 The High Court arrived at a finding that the detenu
    being granted bail or anticipatory bail does not matter as
    far as the fact remains that he was not on remand in those
H
 SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.            989

cases and there was no prejudice to the detenu by             A
reason of the reference made in the detention order. The
High Court rightly observed that the bail petition in
respect of the ground case was pending before the
Sessions Judge, at place 'T' and he was very likely to be
released on bail and if he came out on bail, he would         B
indulge in future activities which would be prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. [Para 15] [998-E-F]

    1.6 The submission there was non-consideration of
the representation of the detenu by the Detaining
Authority which vitiates the entire detention order, is C
solely baseless since the detenu simultaneously made a
representation to the Government and the Government
had fully considered his representation and rejected the
same on 12.08.2011. The Advisory Board also rejected D
the representation of the detenu by order dated
23.08.2011 thereby confirming the detention. [Para 16]
[998-G-H; 999-A-D]

    Sri Anand Hanumathsa Katare vs. Additional District
Magistrate & Ors. 2006 (10) SCC 725: 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR      E
622 - referred to.

    1.7 The ground case relates to the occurrence dated
18.07.2011 and prior to that, the detenu was involved in
two cases in the year 2010 and one case in the year 2008.
The above details clearly show that the detenu was a
                                                              F
habitual offender and as such instances shown are not
stale. These aspects were taken note of by the High
Court, in fact, the High Court found that the detenu had
indulged in one case in the year 2008 and twa cases in
the year 2010 and the ground case in 2011. The                G
particulars also show that in the year 2010, the detenu had
indulged in two cases within a span of 6 months and
again had indulged in the ground case in the year 2011,
therefore, incident nos. 2 and 3 cannot be said to be stale
 and, in such circumstance, the conclusion of the             H
    990      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A Detaining Authority that the detenu was a habitual
  offender cannot be considered to be based on stale
  instances. [Para 17] [999-E-H]

       1.8 The incidents were highlighted in the grounds of
  detention coupled with the definite indication as to the
8
  impact thereof which were precisely stated in the
  grounds of detention. All the incidents mentioned in the
  grounds of detention clearly substantiate the subjective
  satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority as to
  how the acts of the detenu were prejudicial to the
C maintenance of public order. All these aspects were
  considered by the High Court which rightly affirmed the
  detention order. [Paras 18, 19 and 20] [1000-A-E]

      Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. C. Anita (Smt) 2004
D (7)SCC 467:2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 701; Union of India vs.
  Paul Manickam & Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 342: 2003 (4) Suppl.
  SCR 618; M. Ahamedkutty vs. Union of India and Anr. (1990)
    2 SCC 1: 1990 (1) SCR 209 - distinguished.

E        Pushpa Devi M. Jatia vs. M.L. Wadhawan & Ors. 1987
    (3) SCC 367: 1987 (3) SCR 46; Ram Man9har Lohia vs.
    State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 709; Union of India vs. Arvind
    Shergil/ & Anr. 2000 (7) SCC 601; Sunil Fulchand Shah vs.
    Union of India & Ors. 2000 (3) SCC 409: 2000 (1) SCR 945
    - relied on.
F
                       Case Law Reference:
        1987 (3) SCR 46           Relied on          Para 12
        (1966) 1 SCR 709          Relied on          Para 12
G
        2000 (7) sec 601          Relied on          Para 12
        2000 (1) SCR 945          Relied on          Para 12
        2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 622 Referred to          Para 16
H       2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 701 Distinguished        Para 18
 SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.                991


    2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 618 Distinguished            Para 18      A

    1990 (1) SCR 209            Distinguished        Para 18

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 417 of 2012.
                                                                  B
    From the Judgment & Order dated 9.12.2011 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Habeas Corpus Petition No.
937 of 2011

    A Sharan, Ashutosh Jha, Vivek Singh, Aseem Chandra,           C
Amit Anand nwari for the Appelant.

    Guru Krishna Kumar, AAG, Prasana Venkat, 8. Balaji for
the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    D
    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated 09.12.2011 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 937 of         E
2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by
the appellant herein.

    3. Brief facts:

    (a) The appellant is the father of the Detenu. The Detenu     F
has a dispute regarding their land with one Kaliyamoorty for
which a Civil Suit being O.S. No. 452 of 2008 is pending before
the Subordinate Judge at Trichy. The said Kaliyamoorty filed
a complaint with police on 18.07.2011 complaining that the
detenu armed with aruval (sickle) along with his associates       G
apart from threatening the de facto complainant Kaliyamoorty
caused damage to the STD booth by damaging the glasses
and chairs. Accordingly, an FIR being Crime No. 361 of 2011
was registered by the K.K. Nagar Police Station, Trichy. The
                                                                  H
    992     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A   complainant - Kaliyamoorthy had already lodged a complaint
    before the City Crime Branch, Trichy, on 07.02.2010, which was
    registered by the Police as Case Crime No. 3 of 2010 which
    is still pending.

B      (b) On 21.07.2011, respondent No.2 - Commissioner of
  Police passed a detention order against the detenu under
  Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities
  of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,
  Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and
C Video Pirates Act, 1982 (14 of 1982) while holding the detenu
  to be a 'goonda' noticing his involvement in the case of
  18.07.2011 as well as three past cases of the years 2008 and
  2010.

       (c) Against the said order of detention, the appellant sent
D a representation to the Detaining Authority on 25.07.2011 for
  revoking the detention order. He also made a representation
  to the State Government, which is the approving authority,
  against the said order. After receiving the representation of
  the appellant on 28.07 .2011, the Detaining Authority forwarded
E the same to the Government recommending rejection of the
  same. On 12.08.2011, the State Government after due
  consideration rejected the said representation.

        (d) Aggrieved by the said decision of the State
F   Government, the appellant herein filed Habeas Corpus Petition
    before the High Court. The High Court, by its impugned
    judgment dated 09.12.2011, dismissed the said petition.

       (e) Challenging the said judgment of the High Court, the
  appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before
G this Court.

        4. Heard Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior counsel for the
    appellant and Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, learned Additional
    Advocate General for the respondents.
H
 SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.                   993.
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

      5. Mr. A. Sharan, learned senior counsel for the appellant     A
after taking us through the detention order and the impugned
order of the High Court confirming the same submitted that from
the materials placed, the Detaining Authority has not made out
a case for preventive detention. He also submitted that even
if the stand of the Detaining Authority is acceptable, the alleged   B
action of the detenu, at the most, is only a law and order
problem and not of public order as arrived at by the said
Authority for invoking the T.N. Act 14 of 1982. He further
submitted that the reference made by the Detaining Authority
in all the three places in the grounds of detention that the         c
accused obtained regular bail and not anticipatory bail shows
 non-application of mind by the Authority. He also submitted that
failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to consider the
representation of the detenu vitiates the entire order. Finally,
he submitted that the cases relied on by the Detaining Authority     D
are stale and there is no ground for invoking the provisions of
T.N. Act 14 of 1982.

     6. On the other hand, Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, learned
Additional Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu, by
taking us through the grounds of detention, reasoning of the         E
High Court in confirming the same and the materials placed in
the form of counter affidavit before this Court submitted that
none of the arguments advanced by the senior counsel for the
detenu is acceptable and there is no ground for interference
by this Court.                                                       F

     7. Before considering the rival submissions, it is relevant
to refer the definition of 'Goonda' as described in T.N. Act 14
of 1982 which reads thus:

     2(f) "goonda" means a person, who either by himself or as       G
     a member of or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or
     attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences,
     punishable under section 153 or section 153-A under
     Chapter VIII or under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or
     Chapter XXll of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act        H
    994       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A         XLV of 1860) or punishable under section 3 or section 4
          or section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of
          Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (Tamil Nadu Act 59of1992).

  The said Act was enacted by the State in the year 1982 and
  subsequently amended expanding the scope of the Act in order
8
  to prevent certain persons from dangerous activities which are
  prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Since there is
  no dispute as to the power and execution, there is no need to
  refer other provisions.

C       8. We have carefully perused all the relevant materials and
    considered the rival submissions.

        9. With regard to the first submission that no case is made
  out for preventive detention by invoking the provisions of T.N.
D Act 14 of 1982, though the ground case incident arose out of
  a land dispute between the deteflu and the de facto
  complainant, however, the argument that it is only a law and
  order problem and that public order was not disturbed is
  contrary to the facts and equally untenable. As rightly pointed
E out by Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, the Detaining Authority, on
  consideration of materials placed has found that the accused
  caused damage to both public and private properties,
  threatened the public and also created a situation of panic
  among the public. In this regard, it is useful to refer the
  materials narrated in the grounds of detention which are as
F follows:

          "On 18.07.2011, at about 10:00 hours, while Kaliyamoorthy
          was available in the STD booth, Kajamalai Kadaiveethi,
          Kajamalai, Tiruchirapalli city, the accused Kajamalai Viji
G         @ Vijay armed with aruval, his associates Manikandan,
          Uthayan, Sathiya, Sivakumar armed with Kattas came
          there. The accused Kajamalai Viji @ Vijay abused
          Kaliyamoorthy in a filthy language, threatened to murder
          him with aruval by saying "Have you become such a big
H
 SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 995
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

    person to give complaints against me. You bastard, try          A
    giving a complaint, I will chop you down right here."

    His associates threatened him with their respective kattas.

    Thereafter, the accused Kajamalai Viji @ Vijay caused
    damage to the glasses, chair and stool available in the         B
    shop. While Kaliyamoorthy questioned them, the
    accused Kajamalai Viji @ Vijay slapped him on the face.
    Kaliyamoorthy raised alarm for rescue. The general
    public came there and they were threatened by the
    accused Kajama/ai Viji @ Vijay and his associates by            C
    saying "if anyone turns up as witness, I will kill them." The
    nearby shop-keepers closed their shops out of fear. Auto
    drivers took their autos from the stand and left the place.
    The situation created panic among the public. On the
    complaint of Kaliyamoorthy, a case in K.K. Nagar P.S.           D
    Cr. No. 36112011 uls 147, 148, 447, 448, 427, 294(b),
    323, 506(ii) /PC and 3 P.P.D. Act was registered."

     10. From the above materials, the Detaining Authority was
satisfied that the detenu is habitually committing crimes and       E
also acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order and as such he is a 'goonda' as contemplated under
Section 2(1) of the T.N. Act 14of1982. The order further shows
that the Detaining Authority found that there is a compelling
necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging
in such activities in future which are prejudicial to the
                                                                    F
maintenance of public order. After narrating the details of the
ground case and after adverting to earlier instances
commencing from the years 2008 and 2010, the Detaining
Authority has concluded as under:-
                                                                    G
     "Hence, I am satisfied that the accused Kajamalai Viji @
     Vijay 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 the Tamil Nadu Act No. 14 of 1982. By committing       H
    996      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A         the above described grave crime in a busy locality cum
          business area, he has created a feeling of insecurity in the
          minds of the people of the area in which the occurrence
          took place and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the
          maintenance of public order."
8
        11. It is well settled that the court does not interfere with
   the subjective satisfaction reached by the Detaining Authority
  except in exceptional and extremely limited grounds. The court
  cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Detaining
  Authority when the grounds of detention are precise, pertinent,
C proximate and relevant, that sufficiency of grounds is not for the
  Court but for the Detaining Authority for the formation of
  subjective satisfaction that the detention of a person with a view
  to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to public
  order is required and that such satisfaction is subjective and
D not objective. The object of the law of preventive detention is
  not punitive but only preventive and further that the action of the
  executive in detaining a person being only precautionary,
  normally, the matter has necessarily to be left to the discretion
  of the executive authority. It is not practicable to lay down
E objective rules of conduct in an exhaustive manner. The
  satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, therefore, is considered
  to be of primary importance with certain latitude in the exercise
  of its discretion.

F       12. The next contention on behalf of the detenu, assailing
   the detention order on the plea that there is a difference
   between 'law and order' and 'public order' cannot also be
   sustained since this Court in a series of decisions recognized
 · that public order is the even tempo of life of the community
G taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality.
   [Vide Pushpa Devi M. Jatia vs. M.L. Wadhawan & Ors., 1987
   (3) SCC 367 paras 11 & 14; Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State
   of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 709; Union of India vs. ANind Shergill
   & Anr. 2000 (7) SCC 601 paras 4 & 6; Sunil Fulchand Shah
   vs. Union of India & Ors. 2000 (3) SCC 409 para 28
H
 SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.                   997
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(Constitution Bench); Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. C.            A
Anita (Smt), 2004 (7) SCC 467 paras 5, 7 & 13].

      13. We have already extracted the discussion, analysis and
the ultimate decision of the Detaining Authority with reference
to the ground case dated 18.07.2011. It is clear that the detenu,
                                                                      B
armed with 'aruval', along with his associates, armed with 'katta'
came to the place of the complainant. The detenu abused the
complainant in filthy language and threatened to murder him.
His associates also threatened him. The detenu not only
threatened the complainant with weapon like 'aruval' but also         C
damaged the properties available in the shop. When the
complainant questioned the detenu and his associates, the
detenu slapped him on his face. When the complainant raised
 an alarm for rescue, on the arrival of general public in and
 around, they were also threatened by the detenu and his
 associates that they will kill them. It is also seen from the        D
 grounds of detention that because of the threat by the detenu
 and his associates by showing weapons, the nearby shop
 keepers closed their shops out of fear and auto drivers took
 their autos from their stand and left the place. According to the
 Detaining Authority, the above scene created a panic among           E
 the public. In such circumstances, the scene created by the
 detenu and his associates cannot be termed as only law and
 order problem but it is public order as assessed by the
 Detaining Authority who is supposed to safeguard and protect
 the interest of public. Accordingly, we reject the contention        F
 raised by learned senior counsel for the appellant.

     14. The next contention relates to non-application of mind
by the Detaining Authority in respect of the bail obtained by the
detenu. Learned AAG, by drawing our attention to the factual          G
details narrated in the grounds of detention and in the counter
affidavit submitted that such argument is factually incorrect. A
contention has been raised that the accused had obtained
regular bail in all the criminal cases referred to in the detention
order and not anticipatory bail as noted therein, and therefore,
                                                                      H
     998     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A there is non-application of the mind to the relevant material by
   the Detaining Authority. As rightly pointed out by learned
   counsel for the State, the said claim is factually incorrect. It is
   also brought to our notice that the said submission was made
   only now before this Court as an afterthought. A perusal of the
B impugned order of the High Court clearly shows tha.t the only
  contention before the High Court was that the detenu got
  regular bail in Crime No. 727 of 2010 but the Detaining
  Authority has wrongly mentioned the same as anticipatory bail.
  Further, no specific ground has been raised in the SLP. The
C only ground is that the copy of the anticipatory bail order in
  Crime No. 727 of 2010 was not given to the detenu which is
  al!:o contrary to the record since it is specifically stated so in
  the detention order and averred in the counter affidavit that all
  the materials were duly furnished to the detenu. There is no
D denial of the same by filing rejoinder. Further, it is pointed out
  that the detenu had obtained anticipatory bail in the cases
  referred to in the detention order including in Crime No. 727 of
  2010, accordingly, the said contention is also liable to be
  rejected.

E       15. It is also relevant to refer the finding of the High Court
  that the detenu being granted bail or anticipatory bail does not
  matter as far as the fact remains that he was not on remand in
  those cases and there was no prejudice to the detenu by reason
  of the reference made in the detention order. The High Court
F has rightly observed that the bail petition in respect of the
  ground case was pending before the Sessions Judge,
  Tiruchirapalli and he was very likely to be released on bail and
  if he comes out on bail, he would indulge in future activities
  which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. -
G
         16. Learned senior counsel for the detenu next submitted
    that there was non-consideration of the representation of the
    detenu by the Detaining Authority which vitiates the entire
    detention order. The representation was received only on
    28.07.2011 by the Detaining Authority. It is pointed out that
H
 SUBRAMANIAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.                  999
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

within a day, i.e., on 29.07.2011 itself, the detention order was   A
approved by the Government. In such circumstances, the
Detaining Authority could not consider the representation.
Further once the Government affirms the detention order, the
Detaining Authority had become functus officio. [Vide Sri Anand
Hanumathsa Katare vs. Additional District Magistrate & Ors.         B
2006 (10) SCC 725 paras 9 & 13]. Even otherwise, as rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, this argument
is solely baseless since the detenu simultaneously made a
representation to the Government and the Government had fully
considered his representation and rejected the same on              c
12.08.2011. Further, the Advisory Board has also rejected the
representation of the detenu by order dated 23.08.2011 thereby
confirming the detention. This is also clear from the information
furnished in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent-State before this Court.
                                                                    D
      17. Finally, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the cases relied on by the Detaining Authority
are stale. In order to answer this contention, we once again
perused the entire grounds of detention. The ground case
relates to the occurrence dated 18.07.2011 and prior to that,       E
the detenu was involved in two cases in the year 2010 and one
case in the year 2008. The above details clearly show that the
detenu was a habitual offender and as such instances shown
are not stale as argued by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant. These aspects have been taken note of by the High        F
Court, in fact, the High Court has found that the detenu had
indulged in one case in the year 2008 and two cases in the
year 2010 and the ground case in 2011. The particulars also
show that in the year 2010, the detenD had indulged in two
cases within a span of 6 months and again had indulged in the       G
ground case in the year 2011, therefore, incident nos. 2 and 3
cannot be said to be stale and, in such circumstance, the
conclusion of the Detaining Authority that the detenu was a
 habitual offender cannot be considered to be based on stale
 instances.                                                         H
    1000    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A      18. The incidents have been highlighted in the grounds of
  detention coupled with the definite indication as to the impact
  thereof which have been precisely stated in the grounds of
  detention mentioned above. All the incidents mentioned in the
  grounds of detention clearly substar.tiate the subjective
B satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority as to how the
  acts of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public
  order. Ali these aspects have been considered by the High
  Court which rightly affirmed the detention order.

       19. In view of the above conclusion, while there is no
C quarrel as to the proposition of law in the decisions relied on
  by the learned senior counsel for the detenu, namely,
  Commissioner of Police (supra), Union of India vs. Paul
  Manickam & Anr., (2003) 8 sec 342, M. Ahamedkutty VS.
  Union of India and Another, (1990) 2 sec 1, the same are
D inapplicable as being distinguished, more particularly, in view
  of the factual details stated in the impugned detention order,
  we are not referring to those decisions in detail.

      20. In the light of the above discussion, we are unable to
E accept any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant,
  on the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the
  conclusion arrived at by the High Court, consequently, the
  appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

    N.J.                                      Appeal dismissed.