Madras High Court
Ammu vs The Addl. Secretary To Government Of ... on 5 June, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.444 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.444 of 2024
Ammu ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Addl. 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,
Department of Co-operation,
Food and Consumer Protection Department,
2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
3.District Collector and District Magistrate,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP.No.444 of 2024
Civil Supplies CID Police Station,
Krishnagiri District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the
order of detention passed by the third respondent dated 14.02.2024 in
S.C.No.03/2024 (CS) against the petitioner's husband Saravanan, Male,
aged about 41 years, S/o.Mani, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore
and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu
before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.C. Aravind
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu Saravanan, aged
about 41 years, S/o.Mani, has come forward with this petition challenging
the detention order passed by the third respondent dated 14.02.2024 slapped
on her husband, branding him as "Black Marketeer" under the Prevention of
Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities
Act, 1980 (Central Act No.7 of 1980).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an
unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated
26.02.2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the
representation is dated 26.02.2024, the same has been received by the
Government only on 29.02.2024; the file has been dealt with by the
Secretary Law on 26.04.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file
on 26.04.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 26.04.2024 and
sent to the detenu on 26.04.2024. It is the further submission of the learned
counsel that the delay of 40 days in considering the representation remains
unexplained and the same vitiates the detention order. In support of his
contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu',
reported in '(1999) 1 SCC 417'.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. 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 26.02.2024, which was received by the Government on 29.02.2024
and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenu only
on 26.04.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenu on
26.04.2024. Thus, we find that there is a considerable delay of 40 days in
considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 40 days in
considering the petitioner's representation remains unexplained.
5. 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 40 days.
Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of
the detenu.
6. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(cited supra), 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.”
As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble 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 of 40 days has not
been properly explained at all.
7. Further, in a recent decision in 'Ummu Sabeena Vs. State of
Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 third respondent on
14.02.2024 in S.C.No.03/2024 (CS), is hereby set aside and the Habeas
Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Saravanan, aged about 41
years, S/o.Mani, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J]
05.06.2024
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Addl. 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,
Department of Co-operation,
Food and Consumer Protection Department,
2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
3.District Collector and District Magistrate,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Vellore.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies CID Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
7.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sni
05.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
