Allowed

Pandeeswari, v. the Additional Secretary

Madras HC24 Mar 2017HCP(MD)/1741/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition by the wife of a detenu challenged the detention order under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, concluding that quashing was warranted due to inordinate and unexplained delays in considering the representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 08.12.2016 is quashed; the detenu Karuppaiah is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required for any other case.

Pandeeswari, Vs the Additional Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

H.C.P(MD)No. 1741 of 2016

Pandeeswari

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Additional Secretary,

¶11

Government of India,

¶12

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and

¶13

Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) Room No. 270, Krishi Bhavan,

¶14

New Delhi- 110 001.

¶15

2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶16

Co-Operatoion, Foof and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George,

¶17

Chennai- 600 009.

¶18

3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni.

¶19

4.The Inspector of Police, CSCID, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

¶20

5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. : Respondents

¶21

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, pertaining to the order of detention passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Detention Order No. 07 of 2016(CS), dated 08.12.2016 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu, by name, Karuppaiah, son of Rasuthevar, aged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ about 35 years detained in Central Prison,Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶22

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents 1 : Mr.Paulpandi Senior Panel Counsel For Respondents 2 to 5 : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

***************

¶26

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶27

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu - Karuppaiah, son of Rasuthevar, aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Detention Order No. 07 of 2016, dated 08.12.2016, holding him to be a "Black Marketer", as contemplated under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980(Central Act 7 of 1980). The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶28

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶29

3.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.

¶30

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score alone, the impugned detention order cannot be quashed. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

The Detention Order in question was passed on 08.12.2016 The petitioner made a representation dated 20.12.2016. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 22.12.2016. The remarks were duly received on 04.01.2017. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the representation on 11.01.2017.

¶32

It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Authority and thereafter, there was again a delay of 5 days in considering the representation.

¶33

¶34

In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , [ 2011 (5) SCC 244 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Courts of law and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities undertaken by the detenu.

¶35

In Sumaiya Vs. The Secretary to Government , [ 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145] , a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.

¶36

In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others , [ 1980 (2) SCC 321 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the very detention illegal.

¶37

In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and 5 days in considering the representation. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶38

In the result, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Detention Order No.07 of 2016[CS], dated 08.12.2016, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Karuppaiah, son of Rasuthevar, aged about 35 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

¶39

In the upshot, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/-

¶40

Assistant Registrar(Co)

¶41

/True copy/

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

¶44

1.The Additional Secretary,

¶45

Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and

¶46

Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) Room No. 270 Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 001.

¶47

2.The Secretary,

¶48

Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶49

Co-Operatoion, Foof and Consumer Protection Department,

¶50

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Secretariat, Fort St. George,

¶51

Chennai- 600 009.

¶52

¶53

3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni. 4.The Inspector of Police, CSCID, Uthamapalayam, Theni District. 5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 7.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & order), Fort St.George,Chennai-9. +1 cc to Mr.T.Lenin kumar , Advocate in SR.No. 17557 +1 cc to Mr.P.Paul Pandi , Advocate in SR.No. 17077 IA/NB AE/SV/SAR4/13.04.2017/4P/10C

¶54

ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No. 1741 of 2016 Dated: 24.03.2017

¶55

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

Pandeeswari, v. the Additional Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandeeswari, v. the Additional Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl.G.Selvakumar and Brother Vs the Commissioner of

M.Arumugam, Vs the District Revenue Officer

The Co-Operative Sub Registrar Vs S.Muthukrishnan

Balamurugan, Vs the Secretary to Government

S.Chidambaram, Vs the Chairman

Selvalakshmi, Vs the Additional Secretary