Madras High Court
Sathya vs The Secretary on 4 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
H.C.P.No.428 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.428 of 2025
Sathya ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
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 Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies CID,
Dharmapuri.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:33 pm )
H.C.P.No.428 of 2025
Central Prison, Salem. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the order
of detention passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in
S.C.No.04/2025/C1 dated 08.02.2025 and quash the same as illegal and
produce the detenu namely Muthu @ Korila Muthu, S/o.Solaithevar, aged
about 48 years, now he is confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this
Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar
For R1 : Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy
For R2 to R5 : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Muthu @
Korila Muthu, aged about 48 years, S/o.Solaithevar, has come forward with
this petition challenging the detention order passed by the third respondent
dated 08.02.2025 issued against her husband, branding him as "Black
Marketeer" under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of
Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:33 pm )
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
20.02.2025. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the
representation is dated 20.02.2025, the same has been received by the
Government only on 24.02.2025; the file has been dealt with by the Secretary
Law on 21.03.2025; the Minister concerned dealt with the file on 24.03.2025;
the Rejection Letter was prepared on 24.03.2025 and was sent to the detenu
on 24.03.2025. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the
delay of 20 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'.
4. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:33 pm )
on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is
dated 20.02.2025, which was received by the Government on 24.02.2025 and
further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenu only on
24.03.2025 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenu on 24.03.2025.
Thus, we find that there is a delay of 20 days in considering the
representation of the petitioner. This delay of 20 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 20 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
(cited supra), it has been held as follows:
"It is a constitutional obligation of the Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:33 pm )
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 20 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
Constitution that the representation made on behalf of the detenu, should be
considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:33 pm )
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 detenu.
9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the third respondent on
08.02.2025 in S.C.No.04/2025/C1, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus
Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Muthu @ Korila Muthu, aged about 48
years, S/o.Solaithevar, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his
confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.]
04.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:33 pm )
To
1.The 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 Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies CID,
Dharmapuri.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Salem.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
7.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order),
Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:33 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Sni
04.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 04:44:33 pm )
