S.Kamaraj, Aged 37 Years v. The Secretary To Govt.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.08.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.901 of 2018 S.Kamaraj .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, 2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavingar Maligai, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

3.The Secretary to Government Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the order of detention D.O.NO.15/2018-C2 dated, 24/04/2018 passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and also to direct the detenu Tmt.Rajammal, W/O.Kamaraj, aged 33 years, who is presently detained in the Central Prison, Special Prison For Women, Vellore to be produced before this Hon`ble court and set at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.V.Paarthiban For Respondents:

Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor For RR1, 2 & 4 Mr.K.B.Arul, ACGSC for R3.

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in D.O.No.15/2018-C2 dated 24.04.2018, whereby the detenu, by name, Tmt.Rajammal, wife of Kamaraj, was ordered to be detained under Section 3(1) r/w 3(2) (a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act 7 of 1980).

2. The detenue has come to adverse notice in the following

cases:- S.No.

Cr.No. & Police Station Offences 1.

Cr.No.43 of 2018 Tiruvannamalai Civil Supplies CID Unit 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1) a (ii) of EC Act, 1955 The ground case has been registered against the detenue in Cr.No.59 of 2018 on the file of Tiruvannamalai Civil Supplies CID for offences u/s 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1) (a) (ii) of EC Act, 1955. The detention order has been passed by second respondent in D.O.No.15/2018-C2.

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

4. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, the 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.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was arrested on 10.04.2018; whereas the detention order was passed on 24.04.2018, i.e. Nearly after a lapse of 14 days. This inordinate delay in passing of detention order would vitiate the same. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2005 MLJ (Crl.) 752 (Ramesh v. District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli District and another).

6. 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.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.

8. A perusal of the grounds of detention as well as the detention order passed by the detaining authority would show that the Detention Order was passed on 24.04.2018. Further, the detenu was arrested in the ground case as early as on 10.04.2018. This shows an inordinate delay of nearly 14 days in passing the detention order. There is no explanation forthcoming on the side of the respondents for this inordinate delay in passing the detention order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on the decision in Ramesh's case (cited supra) wherein this Court has held as

follows:

"....

3.It is brought to our notice by the learned Government advocate that the analyst report was received on 06.12.2014 and the doctor has issued certificate on 07.12.2014. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the sponsoring authority has submitted his affidavit only on 15.01.2015. When the sponsoring authority is in possession of the analyst report and the doctor's report even on 06.12.2014 and 07.12.2014, there is no proper explanation for submitting his affidavit till 15.01.2015 for invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Even thereafter, the impugned detention order was passed only on 27.02.2015, i.e. After five weeks of receipt of the affidavit from the sponsoring authority. Though the detaining authority has filed a counter affidavit, there is no explanation for the undue delay in passing the impugned order.

4.In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on unreported decision of this Court rendered in H.C.P. No.1149 of 1995, dated 13.12.1995. In similar circumstances, after pointing out the unexplained delay between the date of submission of the affidavit by the sponsoring authority and the detention order, the Division Bench of this Court has concluded thus:

"Such delays tend to have an affect of snapping the link between prejudicial activity and passing of preventive orders......."

9. In view of the above decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the view that the detention order is unsustainable in law on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in passing the detention order and the same is liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless her presence is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kmi

To 1.The Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, 2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavingar Maligai, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

3.The Secretary to Government Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.

4.The Superintendent of Prisons, Special Prison for Women, Vellore.

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (law & Order), Fort Saint George, chennai 9 +1cc to Mr.K.B.Arul, Additional Advocate, S.R.No. 58218 H.C.P.No.901 of 2018 RSK(CO) GN(18/09/2018)