Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 2291
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Fathima
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department & Others
H.C.P. No.695 of 2009
Decided on: 13-07-2009
For the Petitioner:R. Thanjan, E. Edwig, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R1 & R2, N.R. Elango, Addl. P.P., R3, N.K.M. Sahadev, Spl. C.C.G.
The detention order under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 can be set aside if it contains misleading information and fails to consider post-detention representation, causing prejudice to the detenu.
Headnote:
Black Marketing Act - Challenge to detention order under Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 - Section 3(2)(a) read with 3(1) - Essential Commodities Act 1955, TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 - Summary: The court considered the infirmities in the detention order, including misleading information and failure to consider post-detention representation, and concluded that the order was liable to be set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The husband of the petitioner was detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, based on involvement in multiple cases related to possession of PDS ration rice. The petitioner challenged the detention order citing misleading information and failure to consider post-detention representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order suffered from infirmity due to misleading information and failure to consider post-detention representation, causing prejudice to the detenu.
Issues: Misleading information in the detention order, failure to consider post-detention representation
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detention order was infirm due to misleading information and failure to consider post-detention representation, causing prejudice to the detenu.
Final Decision: The habeas corpus petition was allowed, setting aside the detention order and directing the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Challenge is made to an order of detention made by the second respondent herein dated 23.06.2009 in Memo No.01/Black Marketing Act/2009, whereby the husband of the petitioner one Michael was detained under Section 3(2)(a) read with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980), terming him as a Black Marketeer.
2. The affidavit in support of the petition along with all the materials including the order under challenge are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. Admittedly, on the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the said Michael was involved in three averse cases, namely (1) Civil Supplies CID., Chennai Unit Crime No.46/2007 dated 01.02.2007 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 for alleged possession of 30 bags each containing 50 kgs.of PDS ration rice; (2) Civil Supplies CID., Chennai Unit Crime No.1967/2008 dated 011. 2008 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 for alleged possession of 1175 kgs.of PDS ration rice in 25 bags; and (3) Civil Supplies CID., Thiruvallur Unit Crime No.121/2009 dated 14.03.2009 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 for alleged possession of 18 bags each containing 50 kgs. of PDS ration rice and also a ground case in Crime No.151/2009 registered by the Civil Supplies, CID., Chennai Unit under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955, stating that on 18.03.2009 at about 20.00 hours, the detenu was found in possession of 55 bags each containing 50 Kgs. of PDS rice and the case came to be registered in the above crime number. The detaining authority, on perusal and scrutiny of the materials available, was of the opinion that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the public distribution system and hence in order to prevent him from indulging any further activities in future, an order of detention has got to be made under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, and accordingly made the order, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.
4. Assailing the order under challenge, the learned Counsel raised the following points:
Firstly, it is alleged in the ground case that on 18.03.2009, the detenu was found in possession of 55 bags of PDS rice each weighing 50 kg. According to him, actually the detenu had filed a bail application in M.P.No.479/2009 inCrime No.151/2009 before the Principal District and Sessions Court at Tiruvellore and the same was dismissed on 25.03.2009; but when a special report was sent by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority on 24.03.20089, it was stated as if the bail application filed by the detenu was dismissed earlier and thus, the fact, which was stated above, was thoroughly misleading and against the true state of affairs and under such circumstances, the subjective satisfaction could not have been arrived at by the detaining authority properly.
Secondly, a post-detention representation was made on 11.04.2009 to the Central Government and the same was received on 16.04.2009, but it has not been considered by the Central Government till this date.
Added further the learned counsel that in so far as one of the adverse cases in Crime No.1967/2008 is concerned, the detenu was actually remanded by the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvellore, but in the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority, it was stated that he was remanded by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur in one place and the Judicial Magistrate, Egmore in another place. This would also go to show that all proper materials were not placed before the detaining authority. Thus the order is infirm and it has got to be set aside.
5.
