Madras High Court
Saraswathi vs The Additional Secretary on 17 June, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
HCP.No.674 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
H.C.P.No.674 of 2025
Saraswathi ... Petitioner/ wife of the detenue
Vs.
1. The Additional Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Consumer of Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution (Dept.
of Consumer Affairs), Room No.270,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, 2nd Floor,
Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai,
Secretariat, Chennai-09.
3.The District Collector and District
Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
6.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:34 am )
HCP.No.674 of 2025
CSCID, Pollachi Unit.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the records in Connection with the
order of Detention passed by the second respondent dated 12.03.2025 in
Cr.M.P.No.09/BM/2025 against petitioner's Husband namely Raja @
Rajan, aged 53 years, S/o.Joseph, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore
and set and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the
detenue before the Court and set him at Liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel
For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public prosecutor
for R4 to R6
Notice Served For R1 And R3
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu Raja @ Rajan, aged 53
years, S/o.Joseph, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, has come
forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the
third respondent dated 12.03.2025 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:34 am )
No.7 of 1980].
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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
06.05.2025. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the
representation is dated 06.05.2025, the same has been received by the
Government only on 09.05.2025; the file has been dealt with by the Joint
Secretary on 23.05.2025 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file
only on 27.05.2025 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 27.05.2025
and sent to the detenu on 27.05.2025. It is the further submission of the
learned counsel that the delay of 13 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 11:43:34 am )
on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is
dated 06.05.2025, which was received by the Government on 09.05.2025
and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenu
only on 27.05.2025 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenu on
27.05.2025. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of 13 days in
considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 13 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 13
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:34 am )
case (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 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 13 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:34 am )
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,
in Cr.M.P.No.09/BM/2025 , dated 12.03.2025, is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Raja @ Rajan, aged
53 years, S/o.Joseph, confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, is directed to
be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any
other case.
[M.S.R., J] [V.L.N., J]
17.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1. The Additional Secretary,
Government of India,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:34 am )
Ministry of Consumer of Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution (Dept.
of Consumer Affairs), Room No.270,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, 2nd Floor,
Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai,
Secretariat, Chennai-09.
3.The District Collector and District
Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Coimbatore.
5.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
6.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
CSCID, Pollachi Unit.
7.The Joint Secretary,
Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
8.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:34 am )
17.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/06/2025 11:43:34 am )
