J.Anandh Pandiyarajan v. The District Magistrate And

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.10.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P(MD)No.1076 of 2015 J.Anandh Pandiyarajan .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

3.The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Districbution, (Department of Consumer Affiars), Room No. 270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 001.

4.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Dindigul District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents to produce the detenue namely N.C. Jeyabalan, aged about 59 years, Son of Chinniah Nadar, before this Honourable Court who is now detained in the Central Prison, Madurai in pursuant to the detention order passed by the 1st respondent in No. 53/2015(CS) dated 04.07.2015 and to call for the records and quash the same and release the detenue at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha For RR 1,2 & 4 : Mr.T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor For R3 :Mr.R.Nandhakumar Central Government Standing Counsel

O R D E R

*********** [Order of the Court was made by V.S.RAVI,J] The petitioner is the son of the detenu, namely N.C.Jeyabalan. He has been detained as per the order of the first respondent under Section

3(2)(a) read with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980), branding him as "Black-Marketeer".

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is violation of procedural safeguards, which are guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would submit that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay. The learned counsel has relied on few Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Based on the same, the learned counsel would plead for setting aside the detention order.

4. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score, the impugned detention order need not be interfered with, as on account of the said delay, 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. We have considered the above submissions.

6. In this case, the Detention Order was passed on 04.07.2015. As against the same, the petitioner made a representation on 23.07.2015. The remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 23.07.2015. The remarks were received on 05.08.2015. Thereafter, the Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the representation on 11.08.2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was delay of ten days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and there was delay of one day on the part of the Government in considering the same.

7. Now, the question is as to whether on that score, the impugned order can be quashed.

8. In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right to life and liberty of a person is protected, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further 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 of the detenu.

9. 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/detenue would be sufficient to set aside the detention order.

10. In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, [1980 (2) SCC 321], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal. This dictum has been followed in several Judgments consistently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.

11. Applying the said dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if we look into the facts of the present case, undoubtedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of eleven working days and therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.

12. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order passed by the first respondent, in his Detention Order No.53/2015(CS), dated 04.07.2015, is quashed. The detenu, by name,N.C. Jeyabalan, aged about 59 years, Son of Chinniah Nadar, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 3.The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Districbution, (Department of Consumer Affiars), Room No. 270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 001.

4.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID, Dindigul District.

5. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai. ( in duplicate to communicate the detenu) 6 The Joint Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law & order) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 8 The Commissioner of Police, Dindigul District. +1cc to M/S.N.Mohideen Basha, Advocate in SR.No. 60215 TS/13.10.2015/3P - 11C SK-SKN/SAR -I ORDER MADE IN H.C.P(MD)No.1076 of 2015 12.10.2015