K.Sabeena v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.08.2021 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA H.C.P.No.794 of 2021 K.Sabeena W/o.S.Hakkim .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, City Police Officer, Huzur Road, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore - 18.
3.The Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, (Dept. of Consumer Affairs), Room No.270, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi -110 001.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
5.State represented by its The Inspector of Police, CSCID - Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
.. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent C.No.01/PBMMSEC.Act/IS/2021 dated 30.04.2021, quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents herein to
produce the petitioner's husband S.Hakkim S/o.Syed Mohammed, aged 44 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's husband detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner :
Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents:
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate [Crl.side] [R1, R2, R4 and R5]
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., S.Hakkim S/o.Syed Mohammed, aged 44 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order C.No.01/PBMMSEC.Act/IS/2021 dated 30.04.2021, holding him to be a "Black Marketeer", as contemplated under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 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 Government Advocate [Crl.side] 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 Government Advocate [Crl.side] strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. 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 Government Advocate [Crl.side], 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 30.04.2021. The petitioner made a representation on 13.05.2021. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the
Detaining Authority on 25.05.2021. The remarks were duly received on 31.05.2021. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 15.06.2021.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a delay of 6 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence, there was an inordinate delay of 2 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 31.05.2021 and there was a delay of 12 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 4 days were Government Holidays. Hence, there was inordinate delay of 10 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 2 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 8 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.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention C.No.01/PBMMSEC.Act/IS/2021 dated 30.04.2021 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., S.Hakkim S/o.Syed Mohammed, aged 44 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
-s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar gm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority, City Police Officer, Huzur Road, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore - 18.
3.The Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, (Dept. of Consumer Affairs), Room No.270, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi -110 001.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
5.The Inspector of Police, CSCID - Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.794 of 2021 PM(CO) EU 10/08/2021