Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Sundar, M.Nirmal Kumar, JJ.
Prakash S/o. Arunachalam - Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep. by its, The Additional Secretary to Government Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution [Department of Consumer Affairs] Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. - Respondent
H.C.P. No.2456 of 2022
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22 - Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 - 'Habeas Corpus Petition' - sake of convenience and clarity - Impugned detention order has been made by third respondent, i.e., 'jurisdictional District Collector and District Magistrate' - Held, Delay in considering representation on account of indifference or lapse - Court carefully considered chronicle [list of dates] and as already alluded to supra, we have no difficulty in coming to conclusion that delay has not been explained much less well explained - Therefore, as there is an infraction of constitutional imperative, more particularly, constitutional imperative ingrained in Clause (5) of Article 22 of Constitution of India, we have no difficulty in saying that impugned detention order deserves to be dislodged - HCP is allowed.
ORDER :
M.Sundar, J.
Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] has been filed in this Court on 22.11.2022 by uncle of the detenu assailing a 'detention order dated 26.09.2022 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.34/Black Marketer/2022-C1' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. The impugned detention order has been made by the third respondent, i.e., 'jurisdictional District Collector and District Magistrate' [hereinafter 'detaining authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
2. Ms.R.Subadra Devi, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned detention order has been made branding the detenu as a 'Black Marketer' under the provisions of 'Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [Central Act 7 of 1980]' {hereinafter 'Prevention of Black Marketing and EC Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity}.
3. It may not be necessary to dilate on facts or be detained by factual matrix as the petitioner's campaign against the impugned detention order turns on a neat and straight point, i.e., delay in considering the petitioner's representation against the impugned detention order.
4. Adverting to ground [x] in the HCP support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a representation dated 18.11.2022 has been sent to the first and second respondents and the same is pending. To be noted, this ground [x] in the HCP support affidavit reads as follows:
5. The aforementioned ground [x] in the support affidavit has been met by the respondents in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:
A careful perusal of the above stated position of the respondents, more particularly, respondents 1 and 2 brings to light that even the date of disposal of the representation has not been mentioned in the counter affidavit. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions at the Bar placed before us a list of dates and a reproduction of the same is as follows :
| Representation dated | 18.11.2022 |
| Representation received date | 23.11.2022 |
| Remarks called on | 25.11.2022 |
| Reminder date | 12.01.2023 |
| Remarks received on | 23.01.2023 |
| File submitted on | 24.01.2023 |
| Under Secretary dealt with on | 24.01.2023 |
| Deputy Secretary dealt with on | 24.01.2023 |
| Additional Chief Secretary dealt with on | 25.01.2023 |
| Secretary Law dealt with on | 27.01.2023 |
| Minister for Food and Civil Supplies dealt with on | 27.01.2023 |
| Rejection Letter prepared on | 27.01.2023 |
| Rejection Letter sent to the detenu on [through e-mail] | 27.01.2023 |
| Government Holidays Falls on : 26.11.2022, 27.11.2022, 03.12.2022, 04.12.2022, 10.12.2022, 11.12.2022, 17.12.2022, 18.12.2022, 24.12.2022, 25.12.2022, 31.12.2022, 01.01.2023, 07.01.2023, 08.01.2023, 14.01.2023, 15.01.2023, 16.01.2023, 17.01.2023, 21.01.2023, 22.01.2023 and 26.01.2023 | |
| Delay Points: |
|
| Representation | |
The central legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional obligation and procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the need for expeditious c....
The delay in considering representation in preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional obligation of the government to consider representations without delay, emphasizing the history of insistence on procedural s....
Delay in considering a detenu's representation violates constitutional rights, necessitating quashing of detention.
The court established that delays in considering detenu representations violate Article 22, necessitating prompt action to uphold personal liberty.
The court established that delays in processing representations against detention orders, especially when unexplained, violate constitutional rights and can lead to the quashing of such orders.
The court established that unexplained delays in considering representations in preventive detention cases violate constitutional rights and can lead to the quashing of detention orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
