Madras High Court
Vallithai vs The Additional Chief Secretary To The ... on 2 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.816 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.816 of 2024
Vallithai ... Petitioner/wife of the detenu
Vs.
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Consumer Affairs Department,
Room No.270, Krishibhavan
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
_____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.816 of 2024
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison
Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the
detention order passed by the third respondent in Detention Order
H.S(M)Confdl No.50/2024 dated 02.05.2024 and to quash the same and
direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu,
Balamanikandan @ kottu Mani, son of Ayyasamy, aged about 40 years,
before this Court and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Jegadeeshapandian
For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan – for R1
Deputy Solicitor General of India
Mr.S.Ravi – for R2 to R4
Additional Public Prosecutor
_____________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.816 of 2024
ORDER
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Balamanikandan
@ kottu Mani, son of Ayyasamy, aged about 40 years. The detenu has
been detained by the third respondent by his order in H.S(M)Confdl No.
50/2024 dated 02.05.2024 holding him to be a "Black Marketeer", as
contemplated under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2)(a) of the
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.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the
first respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondents 2 to 4. We have also perused the records produced by the
Detaining Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas
Corpus Petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the
representation of the petitioner, dated 07.05.2024. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated
07.05.2024, the same was received by the Government on 13.05.2024 and
the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 21.06.2024 and the Ministry
dealt with the same on 21.06.2024. There is a delay of 28 days in Column
Nos.6 to 9 and 10 to 12 of the Proforma dated -Nil- in considering the
petitioner's representation. The said delay of 28 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
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed
for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.
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 07.05.2024, which was received by the Government
on 13.05.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on
21.06.2024. As per the proforma submitted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 28 days in Column Nos.6 to 9 and 10
to 12 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
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for the delay of 28 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:
"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 28 days has not been properly explained.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 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 H.S(M)Confdl No.50/2024 dated 02.05.2024,
passed by the third respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,
Balamanikandan @ kottu Mani, son of Ayyasamy, aged about 40 years, is
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in
connection with any other case.
[C.V.K., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
02.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Consumer Affairs Department,
Room No.270, Krishibhavan
New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District.
Thoothukudi..
4.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison
Palayamkottai
Tirunelveli District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
RM
02.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
