Madras High Court
Vellaisamy vs The Secretary To Government Of India on 9 September, 2024
Author: C.V. Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
H.C.P.(MD) No.607 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
H.C.P.(MD) No.607 of 2024
Vellaisamy ... Petitioner/Father of the detenu
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs),
Room No.270, Krishibhavan
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
_____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.607 of 2024
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison
Madurai District.
5. The Jailer,
District Prison
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the order made in No.
01/PBMMSEC/2024 dated 09.05.2024 on the file of the third respondent
and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce
the petitioner's son namely, Pandivel, son of Vellaisamy, aged about 25
years, who is now detained as a detenu at District Prison, Dindigul
District or his corpus or body before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
_____________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.(MD) No.607 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sankara Pandian
For Respondents : Mr.V.B.Sundhareshwar – for R1
Central Government Counsel
Mr.S.Ravi – for R2 to R5
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Pandivel, aged
about 25 years. The detenu has been detained by the third respondent by
his order in No.01/PBMMSEC/2024 dated 09.05.2024 holding him to be
a "Black Marketeer", as contemplated under Section 3(1) read with
Section 3(2)(b) 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 Central Government Counsel appearing for the first
respondent and 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 16.05.2024. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated
16.05.2024, the same was received by the Government on 20.05.2024 and
the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 24.06.2024 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 09.08.2024 in considering
the petitioner's representation. The said delay of 24 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
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions,
submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
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 16.05.2024, which was received by the Government
on 20.05.2024 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on
24.06.2024. As per the proforma submitted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of 24 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
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 24 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
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 24 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 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.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and
the order of detention in No.01/PBMMSEC/2024 dated 09.05.2024
passed by the third respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Pandivel, son
of Vellaisamy, aged about 25 years, is 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.]
09.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs),
Room No.270, Krishibhavan
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison
Madurai District.
5. The Jailer,
District Prison
Dindigul District.
6.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
09.09.2024
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
