Madras High Court
Thangamari vs The Additional Secretary To Government on 3 June, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
H.C.P.(MD) No.259 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.259 of 2024
Thangamari ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Additional Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution
(Department of Consumer Affairs),
Government of India,
Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
3.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
____________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.259 of 2024
4.The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies CID,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in pursuant to the proceedings of the
third respondent in Detention Order in M.H.S.Confdl No.22/2024, dated
01.02.2024 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce
the detenu, namely Mariyappan, S/o.Aladiyan, aged 52 years, who is now
detained in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli before this Court and set
him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
For R1 : Mr.K.Govindarajan,
Deputy Solicitor General of India
For R2 to R5 : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
____________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.259 of 2024
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Mariyappan, son of
Aladiyan, aged about 52 years. The detenu has been detained by the third
respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.22/2024, dated 01.02.2024 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 (Act No.7 of 1980). The said order is under challenge in
this habeas corpus petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent
and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.
We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus
petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that
there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner,
dated 16.02.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the
representation is dated 16.02.2024, the same was received by the Government on
19.02.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 10.04.2024. There is
a delay of 18 days in considering the petitioner's representation. The said delay
of 18 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same
vitiates the impugned detention order. In support of his contention, learned
counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme
Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted
that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the
Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order and there is no
illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also stated that even if there is
any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the
rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is dated
16.02.2024, which was received by the Government on 19.02.2024 and the
rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 10.04.2024. As per the proforma
submitted the by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 18
days in considering the representation of the petitioner and we find that the said
delay remains unexplained.
6. 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 delay of 18 days. Therefore, we have to hold
that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.
7. In the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Rajammal's case, it has been held as follows:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"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."
8. 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, in the instant case, the inordinate delay of 18 days has
not been properly explained.
9. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of
Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Honourable 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
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
10. 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.
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order
of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.22/2024, dated 01.02.2024, passed by the third
respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Mariyappan, aged about 52 years, son of
Aladiyan, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in
connection with any other case.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
03.06.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Additional Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution
(Department of Consumer Affairs),
Government of India,
Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,
Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
3.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies CID,
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli.
6.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
am
03.06.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
