Wife petitions for writ of habeas corpus challenging detention under Prevention of Black Marketing Act. Court finds subjective satisfaction vitiated by reliance on bail order of antecedent-free co-accused, setting aside detention order.
Impugned detention order set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless custody required in other proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
H.C.P.No.172 of 2019
Nirmala ...Petitioner/Wife of the detenue herein
vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode.
3.The Additional Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Room No. 270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. .. Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in Detention order in Cr.M.P.No.26/Black Marketer/2018/C1 dated 02.12.2018 on the file of the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's husband Prabhu alias Otraikan Prabhu, son of Selvaraj, aged 31 years, the detenu herein now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : M/s.Subhadra Devi
For Respondents: Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2
Mr.S.Arockiam (CGSC) for R3
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.)
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and challenging the impugned order of detention dated 02.12.2018, passed by the second respondent, under Section 3(1) read with 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980, (Central Act 7 of 1980), in and by which, her husband, the detenu herein has been branded as a “Black Marketer” came forward to file the present habeas corpus petition. A perusal of grounds of detention order dated 02.12.2018 would disclose that the detenu came to adverse notice in the following seven cases:
all the adverse cases as well as the ground case and the Detaining Authority in order to arrive at the subjective satisfaction as to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in illegal activities has placed reliance on the bail order of the co-accused in Cr.M.P. No. 4493 of 2018 dated 10.09.2018 and also drawn the attention of the Court to page nos. 372 and 373 of the booklet and would submit that admittedly, in respect of the said case, the accused were not having any antecedents and taking into consideration the quantum of seizure and the period in incarceration undergone by the accused, they were enlarged on bail and in the case on hand, admittedly, the detenu had very many cases by way of antecedents and as there is no imminent possibility of coming out on bail in all cases and indulging in the above said activities which might endanger social security and stability, prays for quashment of the impugned order of detention.
set aside. The detenu, viz., Prabhu @ Otraikan Prabhu, husband of Nirmala, aged 31 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mbi/kst
To
1.The Secretary,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer
Protection Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Erode District,
Erode.
3.The Additional Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and
Public Distribution Dept. of Consumer Affairs,
Room No. 270, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.
4.The Superintendent Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
5. The Jont Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
6.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S.Arockiam, Advocate SR.No.31813
+1cc to Mr.R.Subhadra Devi, Advocate SR.No.32069
H.C.P.No.172 of 2019
RSI(CO) GMY(30/05/2019)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the subjective satisfaction for detention is vitiated because the detenu has antecedents and bail is not imminent compared to co-accused released in similar cases.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nirmala
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department
District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District
Additional Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution Dept.
M. Sathyanarayanan
M. Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
