Madras High Court
Suganya vs The Additional Secretary To Government ... on 19 August, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
HCP.No.1239 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
H.C.P.No.1239 of 2024
Suganya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Additional Secretary To 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. The Principal Secretary to The Government,
Food And Consumer Protection Department,
II nd Floor Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Commissioner Of Police,
Commissioners Office,
Salem City, Salem.
4. The Superintend Of Prison,
Central Prison Salem,
Salem District.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.1239 of 2024
5. The Inspector Of Police,
Civil Supplies CID,
Salem Unit,
Salem 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 leading to the
detention of detenue namely Surya S/o. Mani Hindu aged about 39 years
vide detention order dated 13.05.2024 on the file of the 3rd respondent
herein made in the proceedings in C.M.P.No.2/Black Marketing /Salem
City/2024 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents
herein to produce the body of the detenue before this Hon'ble Court and
thereafter set him at Liberty from Central Prison, Salem.
For Petitioner : M/s.M.Divyalakshmi
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent herein made in
the proceedings in C.M.P.No.2/Black Marketing /Salem City/2024 dated
13.05.2024, is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The order of detention sought to be assailed and the fact as narrated
would reveal that, there is a delay of 13 days in considering the
representation. The delay in considering the representation and the period
during which the detenue was under detention would be construed as
violation of the Constitutional mandatory under Article 22 of Constitution
of India and thus, the ground of delay in considering the representation
became fatal in the case of preventive detention.
4. It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously
considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable
delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be
a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued
detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find
that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the inordinate delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of
the detenu.
5. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal vs
State Of Tamil Nadu And Another1, it has been held as follows:
"It is a constitutional obligation of the Government
to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu
without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by
Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken
on the representation, the words "as soon as may be " in
clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the
representation should be considered and disposed of at
the earliest."
6.As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited
Rajammal's case, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be
considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the
authorities concerned. But, here the inordinate delay has not been properly
explained at all.
1 (1999) 1 SCC 417
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of
Kerala2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the history of personal
liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards.
The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of
India clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution that the
representation, made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and
disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.
8. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in
quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the
Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the 3rd respondent
herein made in the proceedings in C.M.P.No.2/Black Marketing /Salem
City/2024 dated 13.05.2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus
Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Surya S/o.mani Hindu, aged 39 years
2 2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Salem, is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection
with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [R.S.V., J.]
19.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Sha
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Additional Secretary To 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. The Principal Secretary to The Government,
Food And Consumer Protection Department,
II nd Floor Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Commissioner Of Police,
Commissioners Office,
Salem City, Salem.
4. The Superintend Of Prison,
Central Prison Salem,
Salem District.
5. The Inspector Of Police,
Civil Supplies CID,
Salem Unit,
Salem District.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Sha
19.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
