Allowed

Kalavathy, v. the Addl.Secretary,Govt. of

Madras HC13 Feb 2013HCP(MD)/55/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, wife of a detenu, challenged the detention order passed under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The court held that the detention order was vitiated because the detenu had not filed a bail application and no material was placed before the authority regarding steps to secure bail. Consequently, the court viewed the auth

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of detention dated 03.01.2013 is quashed, and the detenu Saravanan @ Saravanakumar is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Kalavathy, Vs the Addl.Secretary,Govt. of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.02.2013 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN HABEAS CORPUS PETITION No.55 of 2013

¶4

Kalavathy : Petitioner

¶5

Vs. 1.The Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Consumer affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of consumer affairs), Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 2.The secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, CSCID, Madurai. : Respondents

¶6

Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in C.M.P.No.1 of 2013 (CS), dated 03.01.2013 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu, namely Saravanan @ Saravanakumar, son of Shanmugam aged about 39 years, now he is confined in Central Prison, Madurai, before the Honourable Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For R – 1 : No Appearance For RR 2 to 4 : Mr.P.Jothi, Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶8

ORDER

¶9

(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J)

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and the challenge is made to the order of detention dated 03.01.2013 passed by the third respondent, under which the detenu has been branded as a "Black

¶11

¶12

Marketeer" and detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act No.7 of 1980).

¶13

As per the grounds of detention, dated 03.01.2013 passed by the third respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶14

(i) Crime No.247 of 2009 on the file of Madurai, CSCID under Section 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)a (ii) of EC Act, 1955.

¶15

(ii) Crime No.249 of 2010 on the file of Madurai, CSCID under Section 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)a (ii) of EC Act, 1955.

¶16

(iii) Crime No.101 of 2012 on the file of Madurai, CSCID under Section 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)a(ii) of EC Act, 1955.

¶17

(iv) Crime No.304 of 2012 on the file of Thirunelveli, CSCID under Section 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)a(ii) of EC Act, 1955.

¶18

In Paragraph No.3 of the grounds of detention, it is averred among other things that the detenu and other co-accused were also involved in similar kind of offences which took place on 12.12.2012 at about 05.15 hours and in this regard, Madurai Civil Supplies, CID Unit has registered a case in Crime No.424 of 2012 for the commission of offences under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (ground case). The detenu and co-accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and were remanded to judicial custody till 26.12.2012 and their judicial custody was extended till 09.01.2013.

¶19

The detaining authority on being satisfied with the materials placed by the sponsoring authority that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and distribution of essential commodities, clamped the order of detention.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention, would submit that as per the averments made therein, in the connected ground case, the detenu, along with the co-accused, filed an application for bail in Cr.M.P.No.7434 of 2012 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Madurai and it was dismissed on 21.12.2012 and it is further averred that in a similar case registered by CS CID, Madurai Unit in Crime No.586 of 2011, the concerned accused was enlarged on bail in Crl.M.P.No.7174 of 2011 on 16.11.2011 and therefore there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bail application.

¶21

It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the bail application was dismissed on 21.12.2012 and the order of detention came to be passed on 03.01.2013. Admittedly, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detenu did not file any bail application and no material whatsoever has been produced before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority

¶22

¶23

that either the detenu or his relatives are taking steps to file bail application in connection with the ground case and in the absence of such vital and cogent material to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, there is no possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail and he would indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and distribution of essential commodities, the detention order is vitiated and hence prays for the quashment of the impugned order of detention.

¶24

On the above submissions, this Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

¶25

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the bail application in ground case was dismissed on 21.12.2012 and the detention order came to be passed on 03.01.2013 between those days, the detenu had not filed any application for bail and the sponsoring authority has failed to place any material before the detaining authority to show that either the detenu or the relatives are taking steps in connection with the ground case and in the considered opinion of this Court and in the absence of such vital and cogent material, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as to the real and imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is vitiated and hence on the sole ground, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

¶26

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in C.M.P.No.01 of 2013, dated 03.01.2013, passed by the third respondent is quashed. The detenu Saravanan @ Saravanakumar is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention/remand is required in connection with any other case/ proceedings.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Deputy Registrar (Writs)

/TRUE COPY/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Additional Secretary,

¶33

Government of India,

¶34

Ministry of Consumer affairs,

¶35

Food and Public Distribution

¶36

(Department of consumer affairs), Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶37

2.The secretary,

¶38

Government of Tamil Nadu Co-operation, Food and

¶39

Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

¶41

3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, CSCID, Madurai. 5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr. Kumaraguru, Advocate in SR.No.9220. +1 CC to Mr. T. Lenin Kumar, Advocate in SR.No.8944. ps PKS/15.02.2013/4P/10C H.C.P(MD)No.55 of 2013 13.02.2013

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kalavathy, v. the Addl.Secretary,Govt. of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalavathy, v. the Addl.Secretary,Govt. of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Dinakaran, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Palaniyammal Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Sundaraj, Vs the Inspector of Police

Pushpam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Vellaiammal, Vs the District Collector and

B.Asha Vs Deputy Superintendent of Polic