Kasthuri v. The Secretary To The Govt.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.09.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.1386/2015 Kasthuri .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary to the Government, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, "Krishi Bhavan", New Delhi 110 001.

2.The Secretary to Government, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

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

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in S.C.No.48/2015 (CS) dated 12.05.2015 on the file of the third respondent herein against the petitioner's husband Kalidass and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Kalidas, husband of the petitioner, male aged about 25 years, son of Nallu, now confined at Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty to secure the ends of justice.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Senthilvel For RR 2 & 3 :

Mr.M.Maharaja,APP

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the third respondent vide Proceedings in S.C.No.48/2015 (CS) dated 12.05.2015, whereby the detenu/husband of the petitioner, by name, Kalidass, Son of Nallu, aged about 25 years, was ordered to be detained under the section 3(1) read with Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities act, 1980 (Central Act.No.7 of 1980)) branding him as a "BLACK MARKETER".

2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.S.Senthilvel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that page Nos.86 and 86A and certain other pages in the booklet furnished to the detenu are illegible and could not be read at all. This illegible copies would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated on these grounds and the same is liable to be quashed. 4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.

6.A perusal of the booklet supplied to the detenu would show that the copies of documents referred and relied upon and referred to by the Detaining Authority, in particular, page Nos.86 and 86A and other certain pages are illegible and are totally unreadable. This has resulted in the detenu being deprived of making an effective representation. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

7.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.

8.In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground.

9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, "Krishi Bhavan", New Delhi 110 001.

2.The Secretary to Government, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

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

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5.The Superintendent of Central Prison Salem.

6. The Joint Secretary to Government Public Law and Order Fort St.George Chennai-9 H.C.P.No.1386/2015 mp(co) aa02/11/2015