Praveenkumar v. Government Of Tamilnadu, Rep.By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26.05.2020

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA H.C.P. No.513 of 2020 Praveenkumar ... Petitioner -vs1. Government of Tamilnadu, 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 Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution Department of Consumer Affairs, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order in Cr.M.P.No.06/Black Marketer/2020/C1 dated 12.02.2020 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's father namely the detenu Thiru.Dhamothiran @ Dhamodharan, aged 50 years, son of late Ganesan, the detenu herein before this Court, now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner .. Ms.R.Subadra Devi For Respondents .. Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 Mr.G.Karthikeyan for R3

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the son of Dhamothiran @ Dhamodharan, male, aged 50 years, S/o.(Late) Ganesan, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.06/Black Marketer/2020/C1 dated 12.02.2020, 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.

2. 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.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing 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.

4. 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.

5. The Detention Order in question was passed on 12.02.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 07.12.2019. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 19.07.2019. The remarks were duly received on 29.07.2019. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 16.08.2019.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 10 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining

Authority, of which 2 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 29.07.2019 and there was delay of 16 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department after the Deputy Secretary dealt with it, of which 5 days were Government Holidays, hence, there was inordinate delay of 11 days in considering the representation.

7. In Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011 (5) SCC 244), the Honourable 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.

8. 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.

9. In Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1980 (2) SCC 321, the Honourable 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.

10. In the subject case, admittedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 8 days in submitting the remarks and 11 days in considering the representation by the Hon'ble Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise Department. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.06/Black Marketer/2020/C1 dated 12.02.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Dhamothiran @ Dhamodharan, male, aged 50 years, S/o.(Late) Ganesan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS I) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi/ms

To

1. The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, 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 Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution Department of Consumer Affairs, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.(In duplicate for Communication to the Detenue)

6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St.George, Chennai 9 H.C.P.No.513 of 2020 NRL(CO) KKV/08/07/2020