Allowed

Kumutha v. State Rep by

Madras HC22 Apr 2022HCP/201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition, the Madras High Court quashed a detention order passed under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act. The Court found that the detaining authority failed to substantiate service of arrest intimation to the detenu's wife, violating the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Cr.M.P.No.24/Black Marketer/2021/C1 dated 26.12.2021 passed by the third respondent is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless detention is require

Kumutha Vs State Rep by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶5

H.C.P.NO.201 OF 2022

¶6

Kumutha W/o.Prakash Arunachalam

¶7

... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue

¶8

.Vs.

¶9

The State represented by its The Principal Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department,

¶10

2^nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶11

The Additional Secretary to Government, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs), Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.

¶12

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Erode District.

¶14

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department,

¶16

Erode Unit. ... Respondents

¶17

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

¶18

PRAYER:-

¶19

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in detention order in Cr.M.P.No.24/Black Marketer/2021/C1 dated 26.12.2021 on the file of the third respondent herein and set aside the same, direct the respondents herein to produce the body of petitioner's husband, namely, the detenu Prakash s/o.Arunachalam, aged 35 years, before this Court, now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set him at liberty.

¶20

For Petitioner : M/s.R.Subadra Devi

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor

¶22

ORDER

¶23

[Order of the Court was made by A.A.NAKKIRAN, J]

¶24

The petitioner is the Wife of the detenu viz., Prakash s/o.Arunachalam, aged 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the third respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.24/Black Marketer/2021/C1 dated 26.12.2021, holding him to be a "Black Marketer", as contemplated under the provisions of 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.

¶25

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

¶26

Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the sponsoring authority has stated, in page No.94 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the mother of the detenu through SMS. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the mother of the detenu through SMS. Therefore, it is stated that the detenu was deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of furnishing of full particulars by the detaining authority.

¶27

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

¶28

Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind.

¶29

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the mother of the detenu through SMS.

¶30

However, we find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such cases that the detention order cannot be sustained.

¶31

As evidenced from the document in page No.94 of the Booklet furnished to us, a mere endorsement is made by the authorities to the effect that the arrest intimation has been informed to the mother of the detenu through SMS, but, no materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Thapal or Registered post or as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the relatives of the detenu would amount to deprivation of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and the same would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶32

It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.

¶33

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.24/Black Marketer/2021/C1 dated 26.12.2021 passed by the third respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Prakash s/o.Arunachalam, aged 35 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶34

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶35

//True Copy//

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

To
1.	The Principal Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, 2^ndFloor, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.	The Additional Secretary to Government, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs), Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
3.	The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District.
4.	The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Erode District.
5.	The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Coimbatore, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore.
6.	The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Erode Unit.
7.	The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
8.	The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
	H.C.P.NO.201 OF 2022

¶40

RSI(CO) PBS/26/04/2022

¶41

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

Kumutha v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumutha v. State Rep by

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

V.Amuthavalli Vs The Secretary to Government

Duraisamy Vs the State Rep by Its

Kumaresan Vs the State Rep by

Suresh Rajan Vs the State Rep by

Rajamani Vs State Rep by

Rabiyathul Basiriya Vs the State Rep.by Its