Lakshmi Devi v. Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Lakshmi Devi Wife of Mr.Santhosh Kumar ..
Petitioner Vs.
1.
Secretary to Government Government of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) Room No.270, 'Krishi Bhavan'
New Delhi - 110 001.
2.
Secretary to Government Food and Consumer Protection Department 2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
3.
District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur.
4.
Superintendent of Police Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur.
Page Nos.1/7
5.
The Superintendent of Central Prison II Puzhal, Chennai-66.
6.
The Inspector of Police Civil Supplies C.I.D., Tiruvallur.
..
Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent dated 02.10.2022 in PBMMSECA No.8/2022 against the petitioner's husband Santhosh Kumar, Male, Age 38, S/o.Chandiran, who is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600 066 and set aside the same and consequently, set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Ms.G.Gayathri representing Mr.M.Soundar Vijay Arulram For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been filed by the spouse of detenu in this Court on 18.10.2022 assailing a 'detention order dated 06.10.2022 bearing reference PBMMSECA No.8/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' Page Nos.2/7
for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by the 'third respondent i.e., jurisdictional District Collector' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, sixth respondent i.e., jurisdictional Inspector of Police is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. Ms.G.Gayathri, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the six respondents are before us.
3. The impugned detention order has been made by the Detaining Authority inter alia on the premise that the detenu is a 'Black Marketeer' vide 'Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act No.7 of 1980)' [hereinafter 'Black Marketing and EC Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
4. In petitioner's campaign against impugned detention order, one point finds favour with us and that point is delay in considering the representation.
Page Nos.3/7
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sent a representation but there is delay in considering the same. In response to this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the representation of the detenu was received on 19.10.2022 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed before us a chronicle which reads as follows:
6. A careful perusal of the above makes it clear that there is 30 days delay which remains unexplained. Delay is long enough and it also remains unexplained. Delay in considering the representation is a facet of infraction Page Nos.4/7
of constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of Constitution of India. In the case on hand, the delay is clearly an infraction of the facet of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned detention order cannot but be dislodged on this ground.
7. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
8. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 06.10.2022 bearing reference PBMMSECA No.8/2022 made by the third respondent is set aside and the detenu Mr.Santhosh Kumar, son of Mr.Chandiran is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases.
9. Captioned HCP ordered on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 13.02.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking mk P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison-II, Puzhal.
Page Nos.5/7
To 1.
Secretary to Government Government of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) Room No.270, 'Krishi Bhavan'
New Delhi - 110 001.
2.
Secretary to Government Food and Consumer Protection Department 2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
3.
District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruvallur District Tiruvallur.
4.
Superintendent of Police Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur.
5.
The Superintendent of Central Prison II Puzhal, Chennai-66.
6.
The Inspector of Police Civil Supplies C.I.D., Tiruvallur.
7.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.6/7
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mk 13.02.2023 Page Nos.7/7