← Library
Madras High CourtHCP(MD)/1266/2015allowed

Chandira v. The Dis Col Cum Dis Mag

2015-11-18Honourable Mr Justice P.R.Shivakumar,Honourable Mr Justice V. S. Ravi3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.11.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P(MD)No.1266 of 2015 Chandhira .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Madurai District.

2.Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Dept., Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

3.The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Food and Public Distribution Department, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of a writ of Habeas corpus to call for the entire records relating to detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order passed in C.M.P.No.06/2015 (CS) dated 31.07.2015 on the file of the first respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband Murugesan S/o. Seeniayyanadar, male aged about 55 years, now confined in Central Prison, Madurai before this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by V.S.RAVI,J] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Murugesan S/o. Seeniayyanadar, aged about 55 years. The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the first respondent under Sections 3(1) r/w 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, branding him as "Black Marketeer". Challenging the same, she has come up with this petition.

2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 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. 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 31.07.2015. As against the same, the petitioner made a representation on 12.08.2015. The remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 18.08.2015. The remarks were received on 24.08.2015. Thereafter, the Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the representation on 02.09.2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was delay of four days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority and there was delay of seven days 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, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and this Court sets aside the order of detention, dated 31.07.2015, made in C.M.P.No.06/2015 (CS), by the first respondent / District Collector cum District Magistrate, Madurai District and directs the release of the detenu by name Murugesan S/o. Seeniayyanadar, aged about 55 years forthwith, if his continued custody/detention is not authorised in specific cases or by any other order of detention. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Madurai District. 2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Dept., Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 3.The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Food and Public Distribution Department, Room No.

270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. (In Duplicate for communication to the detenu) 5.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St. George, Chennai -9. 6.The Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.J.Anandkumar, Advocate Sr.No.65917 akm/20.11.2015 /2p-9c/ Order Made in H.C.P(MD)No.1266 of 2015 18.11.2015