4. AND WHEREAS, the Government on careful examination of the entire record, it is observed that the detenu Sri Karpan Goundar Mani, S/o Sri Karpan Goundar, aged 50 years, Parmathi Vellore Village Namakkal District, Tamilnadu State, was involved in as many as in 6 (Six) cases. The above cases were registered against him, under the provisions of Section 20(1) (ii) (iii) (iv) & (X) of A.P. Forest Act, and also under Section 29 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and 55(2) of Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and Section 307, 353, 378 & 379 IPC. The details shows that he is a habitual offender. He is committed a series of forest offences by entering Government Reserve Forests without proper authorisation, serving standing red sanders trees heart wood to secret destinations in Bangalore/ Chennai and other unknown places. He has not stopped the same type of offences, even after cases and charge sheets were filed against him. It is also evident from the case records that he is engaging huge number of persons in the clandestine business and they were arrested along with the red sander stock at the time cutting of tress and during transportation. The said activities are dangerous to forest wealth and prejudicial to maintenance of public order apart from disturbing the peace, tranquility, social harmony / order in the society and he became a source of potential danger to the public. The said offences are punishable under Forest Act, 1967 and the rules made there under, as well as Chapter XVI or XVII or XXII of IPC. As such the activities of the individual falls under and within the meaning of ‘Goonda’ as defined under section 2(g) of Act 1 of 1986. All the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention clearly substantiate as to how the acts of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Courts held that ‘any acts of attempt or illegal cutting of the red sander trees and smuggling the timber, would certainly have its impact on the public order. The detaining authority having taken into account and consideration of indulgence of the detenu in the above said activities repeatedly at regular intervals and having satisfied that the penal laws have failed to curb his illegal activities, has passed the detention order against the detenu by invoking the provisions under the Act 1 of 1986, in order to prevent him from indulging further in such activities, which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and dangerous to forest wealth. The Advisory Board after review of the case, has opined that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the Detenu. As such, the detenu deserves the maximum period of detention, as provided under Section 13 of the Act;
