Madras High Court
Dineshkumar vs The Secretary To Government on 16 September, 2022
HCP(MD)No.1099 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
H.C.P.(MD)No.1099 of 2022
Dineshkumar ... Petitioner / Detenu
Vs.
1.The Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai 2nd Floor,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kanniyakumari District at
Nagercoil.
3.The Secretary to Government of India,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Consumer Affairs Department,
Room No.270, Krishibhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1099 of 2022
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with
the detention order in P.D.No.36/2022 dated 31.05.2022 on the file of the 2 nd
Respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenu or body of the detenu namely Dineshkumar, aged about 25 years,
S/o.Paramasivam, now detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before
this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
The petitioner is the detenu viz., Dineshkumar, aged about 25 years,
S/o.Paramasivam. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent
by his order in P.D.No.36/2022 dated 31.05.2022 holding him to be a "Black
Marketeer", as contemplated under the provisions of Prevention of Black
Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act,
1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980). The said order is under challenge in this
Habeas Corpus Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1099 of 2022
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 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.
4.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.
5.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.1099 of 2022
6.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf
of the respondents.
7.The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the detenu admittedly did not file any bail application and
no bail application was pending as on the date, when detention order was
passed. However, the detaining authority took into consideration the
conditional bail that was granted to one Raja, in Crl.M.P.No.4097 of 2021
dated 14.07.2021. 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.
8.We have carefully considered the bail order passed in Crl.M.P.No.
4097 of 2021 dated 14.07.2021. We find that bail was granted in this case
to one Raja, after taking into consideration the Covid-19 pandemic
situation. In view of the same, this bail order cannot be taken to be similar
case. It is therefore clear that there is total non-application of mind on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1099 of 2022
part of the detaining authority. We have considered the order passed in
Crl.M.P.No.4097 of 2021 dated 14.07.2021 and conclude that it is not a
similar case.
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.
11.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in P.D.No.36/2022 dated 31.05.2022, passed by the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1099 of 2022
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Dineshkumar, aged about 25 years,
S/o.Paramasivam, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is
required in connection with any other case.
(J.N.B.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.)
16.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1099 of 2022
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai 2nd Floor,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kanniyakumari District at
Nagercoil.
3.The Secretary to Government of India,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Consumer Affairs Department,
Room No.270, Krishibhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1099 of 2022
J. NISHA BANU,J.
and
N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.
sm
H.C.P.(MD)No.1099 of 2022
16.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
