Madras High Court
Ramya vs The Principal Secretary To on 27 October, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
HCP No. 1454 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P No. 1454 of 2025
1. Ramya
W/o.Ananth, Ramasamy Anjalai Nagar,
Lakshminarayanapuram, Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District - 607 106.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary to
Government
C-Operation, Food and Consumer
Protection Depattment,
Chennai- 600009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Consumer affairs, Food and
Public Distribution, (Department of
Consumer Affairs) Room No.270,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
3.The District Collector and District
Magistrate,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 12:44:45 pm )
HCP No. 1454 of 2025
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Civil Supplies C.I.D. Chennai - 35.
5.The Superintendent ,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies C.I.D. Cuddalore Unit,
Cuddalore -2.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
The Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to
Detention Order No.C3/D.O./75/2025 on the file of the 3rd Respondent, quash
the detention order dated 02.06.2025 and direct the production of the detenu
Ananth son of Ramalingam (aged about 34 years) presently detained at the
Central Prison, Cuddalore and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. A.M.Rahamath Ali
For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan for R1, R3 to R6
M/s. Dr.D.Simon for R2
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu viz., Ananth
S/o Ramalingam, aged about 34 years, confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore,
has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by
the third respondent dated 02.06.2025 slapped on her husband, branding him as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 12:44:45 pm )
"Black Marketer" under the Provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and
Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of
1980).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the
ground that the Arrest Intimation Form was not properly translated into Tamil.
Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective
representation.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also fairly state that
the Arrest Intimation Form was not properly translated into Tamil version.
5. On a perusal of the Booklet, it is seen that Page No.67 of the booklet
furnished to the detenu, i.e., Arrest Intimation Form, was not properly
translated into Tamil version. Therefore, the detenu is deprived from making
effective representation and that the Detention Order passed by the Detaining
Authority is vitiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 12:44:45 pm )
6. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999)
2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards
embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should
be afforded an opportunity of making representation effectively against the
Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language
which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. In the said context, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as
follows:-
“9.However, this Court has maintained a distinction
between a document which has been relied upon by the
detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a
document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of
detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the
document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been
held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not
show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because
the non-supply of such a document would amount to denial
of the right of being communicated the grounds and of
being afforded the opportunity of making an effective
representation against the order. But it would not be so
where the document merely finds a reference in the order of
detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the
detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be
supported by prejudice caused to him in making an
effective representation. What applies to a document would
equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 12:44:45 pm )
document in the language known to and understood by the
detenu, should the document be in a different language.
..... 16.For the above reasons, in our view, the
non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document,
on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her
continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the
detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be
detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly
allowed.”
7. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in
view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is
liable to be quashed.
8. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the third
respondent on 02.06.2025 in No.C3/D.O./75/2025 is hereby set aside and the
Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Ananth S/o
Ramalingam, aged about 34 years, confined at Central Prison, Cudalore, is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in
connection with any other case.
(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
27-10-2025
ASI
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 12:44:45 pm )
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
C-Operation, Food and Consumer
Protection Depattment,
Chennai- 600009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Consumer affairs, Food and
Public Distribution, (Department of
Consumer Affairs) Room No.270,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011.
3.The District Collector and District
Magistrate,
Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Civil Supplies C.I.D. Chennai - 35.
5.The Superintendent ,
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Civil Supplies C.I.D. Cuddalore Unit,
Cuddalore -2.
7. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 12:44:45 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ASI
27-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 12:44:45 pm )
