Madras High Court
Thangamuniyappan vs The Secretary To Government on 18 November, 2022
HCP(MD)No.1318 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.11.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
H.C.P.(MD)No.1318 of 2022
Thangamuniyappan .. Petitioner / brother of the
detenu
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government,
Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
3. The Additional Secretary to Government,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public
Distribution System,
Government of India,
Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 001.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1318 of 2022
Madurai District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the
detention order passed by the second Respondent in D.O.No.65/2022 dated
25.07.2022 and to quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the
body or person of the detenu by name, Pandi, son of Murugan, aged about
38 years, now confined at Central Prison, Madurai before this Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The petitioner is the brother of the detenu viz., Pandi, son of
Murugan, aged about 38 years. The detenu has been detained by the second
respondent by his order in D.O.No.65/2022 dated 25.07.2022 holding him
to be a "Black Marketeer", as contemplated under Section 3(1) r/w 3(2)(a)
of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of
Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central 7 of 1980). The said order is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1318 of 2022
under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus
Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his argument on the
ground, wherein, the detaining authority has taken into consideration the
fact that the accused, who are similarly placed, have been granted bail by
the competent Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining
authority, without the availability of materials, cannot ipso facto satisfy
himself regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail,
merely on the ground that the accused, who are similarly placed have been
granted bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2011) 5
SCC 244] to substantiate his submission.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1318 of 2022
5. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the detaining authority, was aware of the fact that the third
bail petition filed by the detenu is pending and inspite of the same, came to
a conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail by
relying upon the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.15319/2021 dated 22.12.2021.
According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the similar
case that was taken into consideration by the detaining authority to come to
a conclusion that there is a likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, is
not a similar case and in the bail order, it is seen that bail was granted by
considering the pandemic situation. Hence, the detention order suffers from
non application of mind.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
8. We have carefully gone through the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.
15319/2021 dated 22.12.2021 and it is clear that the bail was granted in that
case mainly on the ground that there was a pandemic situation prevailing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1318 of 2022
and the accused therein had also suffered incarceration for a sufficient
period. Hence, this order cannot be considered to be a similar case. In view
of the same, we find that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
detaining authority with regard to the likelihood of the detenu coming out
on bail suffers from non-application of mind on the part of the detaining
authority.
9. The issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is no longer res integra and it is covered by the judgment that has
been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been referred
supra.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the above
judgment that the accused persons, who are similarly placed being granted
bail by the same Court or by a higher Court, cannot be a ground for the
detaining authority to come to such a subjective satisfaction without there
being any materials to substantiate the same. This by itself reflects non
application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Therefore, the
order of detention is liable to be interfered with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1318 of 2022
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in D.O.No.65/2022 dated 25.07.2022 passed by the second
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Pandi, son of Murugan, aged about
38 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required
in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R.,J.] & [N.A.V.,J.]
18.11.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
PJL
To:
1. The Secretary to Government,
Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1318 of 2022
3. The Additional Secretary to Government,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public
Distribution System,
Government of India,
Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 001.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1318 of 2022
M.S.RAMESH,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
PJL
H.C.P.(MD)No.1318 of 2022
18.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
