Chinnaponnu v. The Addl Secretary To Govt, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.12.2020 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.KRISHNAKUMAR H.C.P. No.2355 of 2020 Chinnaponnu ..Petitioner/Mother of the Detenue Vs.

1. 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-110001

2. The Principle Secretry to the Government Food and Consumer Protection Department, II Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

3. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Thiruppathur, Thiruppathur District.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruppathur District, Thiruppathur.

5. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.

6. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supply CID Vellore, Vellore District.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the third

respondent dated 16.09.2020 in C3.D.O.No.40/2020, against the petitioner son namely Ramachandaran, S/o.Masilamani, aged about 36 years at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District, and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : M/s.E.Kannadasan 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 mother of the detenu, Ramachandaran, S/o.Masilamani, aged about 36 years . The detenu has been detained by the third respondent by his order in C3.D.O.No.40/2020, dated 16.09.2020, holding 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 many grounds have been raised in the petition, 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. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the sponsoring authority has stated in the Arrest Memo at page No. 23 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the family member of the detenu. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the family member of the detenu. Therefore, it is stated that the detenu was deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of furnishing of full particulars by the detaining authority. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind.

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the family member of the detenu through SMS. However we find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such cases that the detention order cannot be sustained.

5.As evidenced from the document in page No.23 of the Booklet furnished to us, a mere endorsement is made by the authorities to the effect that the arrest intimation has been informed to the family member of the detenu through SMS but no materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Thapal or Registered post or as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the relatives of the detenu would amount to deprivation of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and the same would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

6.It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.

7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3.D.O.No.40/2020 dated 16.09.2020 passed by the third respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Ramachandaran, S/o.Masilamani, aged about 36 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ak/vaan

To

1. 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-110001

2. The Principle Secretry to the Government Food and Consumer Protection Department, II Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009.

3. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Thiruppathur, Thiruppathur District.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public Law and Order, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruppathur District, Thiruppathur.

6. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District.

7. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supply CID Vellore, Vellore District.

8. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P. No.2355 of 2020 CO(EV) BDL/31/12/2020