Rajeswari v. The Secretary To The Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.12.2020 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P. No. 1453 of 2020 Rajeswari .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government Food and Consumer Protection Department, 2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Secretariat, Chennai - 09.
3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.
6.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Vellore Unit, Vellore District.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the third respondent dated 22.07.22020 in Memo B3.D.O.No.75/2020 against the petitioner husband Janakiraman, M/35 years, Son of Chellamuthu, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Saranraj For Respondents:
Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl.Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Janakiraman, son of Chellamuthu, male, aged 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the third respondent by his order in Memo B3.D.O.No.75/2020 dated 22.07.2020 holding him to be a "Black Marketeer", as contemplated under the provision of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No. 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 22.07.2020. The petitioner made a representation on 14.08.2020. Thereafter, remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 20.08.2020. The remarks were duly received on 05.09.2020. Thereafter, the Government considered the matter and passed the order rejecting the petitioner's representation on 14.09.2020.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a
delay of 16 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority, of which 4 days were Government Holidays and hence there was an inordinate delay of 12 days in submitting the remarks. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the remarks were received on 05.09.2020 and there was a delay of 7 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 3 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 12 days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and unexplained delay of 3 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 Memo B3.D.O.No.75/2020 dated 22.07.2020, passed by the third respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Janakiraman, son of Chellamuthu, male, aged 35 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
ssm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government Food and Consumer Protection Department, 2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Secretariat, Chennai - 09.
3. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public Law and Order, Secretariat, Chennai - 09 4.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ranipet District, Ranipet.
5.The Superintendent of Police, Ranipet, Ranipet District.
6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.
7.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Vellore Unit, Vellore District 8.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No. 1453 of 2020 UM(CO) NS(29/12/2020)