Divya v. The Addl Secretary To The Government Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Divya ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Addl. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, 2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
5.The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Vellore.
6.The Inspector of Police Civil Supplies CID Police Station, Ranipet & District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the third respondent on 23.01.2024 in B3.D.O.No.03/2024 against the petitioner's mother Bhuvaneshwari, Female, aged 46 years, W/o.Purusothaman, who is confined at Special Prison for Women, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.
The petitioner herein, who is the daughter of the detenue namely Bhuvaneshwari, aged about 46 years, W/o.Purusothaman, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the third respondent 23.01.2024 slapped on her mother, branding her as
"Black Marketeer" under the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.01.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 27.01.2024, the same has been received by the Government only on 30.01.2024; the file has been dealt with by the Secretary Law on 26.02.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file only on 27.02.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 28.02.2024 and sent to the detenue on 29.02.2024. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 22 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for
the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.
4. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is dated 27.01.2024, which was received by the Government on 30.01.2024 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenue only on 27.02.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenu on 29.02.2024. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of 22 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 22 days in considering the petitioner's representation remains unexplained.
5. It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been
offered for the delay of 22 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.
6. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case (cited supra), it has been held as follows: "It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be " in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest."
As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited Rajammal's case, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the authorities concerned. But, here the inordinate delay of 22 days has not been properly explained at all.
7. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution that the representation made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.
8. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the third respondent on 23.01.2024 in B3.D.O.No.03/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue viz., Bhuvaneshwari, aged about 46 years, W/o.Purusothaman, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 26.04.2024 kas
To 1.The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, 2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
5.The Superintendent of Prison, Special Prison for Women, Vellore.
6.The Inspector of Police Civil Supplies CID Police Station, Ranipet & District.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and SUNDER MOHAN , J.
kas 26.04.2024