Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Sundar, M.Nirmal Kumar, JJ.
Kaleeshwari - Petitioner
Vs.
The Additional 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 - Respondent
H.C.P.No.2172 of 2022
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22 - Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 - Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' has been filed in this Court assailing a 'detention order bearing reference PBMMSECA made by 'third respondent/jurisdictional District Collector' - Held, As regards delay in considering representation, legal principle is, it is a infraction of constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause 5 of Article 22 of Constitution of India - As delay in case on hand is a clear infraction of constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of Constitution of India, Court have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that impugned detention order deserves to be interfered with and set aside - Ergo, sequitur is, impugned detention order bearing PBMMSECA is set aside, male, aged 40 years, , is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case - HCP 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 27.10.2022 assailing a 'detention order dated 07.10.2022 bearing reference PBMMSECA No.9/2022' (hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity) made by the 'third respondent/jurisdictional District Collector' (hereinafter 'detaining authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity).
2. Wife of detenu is the petitioner before us in the captioned HCP. The impugned detention order has been made by the detaining authority in exercise of powers under 'Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980)' {hereinafter 'Black Marketing and EC Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity}.
3. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all the respondents are before us. To be noted, sixth respondent is the sponsoring authority.
4. We are of the view that it is not necessary to be detained by detailing the facts or by delving into greater factual details ie., factual matrix as one clean and neat point raised by learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing (notwithstanding very many points raised in the support affidavit) straight away finds favour with us.
5. The aforementioned one point is delay in considering the representation made by the detenu. Learned counsel submits that a representation dated 31.10.2022 was sent to the first respondent and there is inordinate delay in considering the same.
6. In response to the above, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor has placed before us a chronicle capturing the trajectory the representation took and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
7. The aforementioned chronicle makes it clear that there is 24 days delay in considering the representation of the detenu being representation dated 31.10.2022. We find that remarks have been called for on 08.11.2022 which was received only on 17.11.2022. In our considered view, there is a leap in the chronicle qua delay in considering the representation.
8. As regards delay in considering the representation, the legal principle is, it is a infraction of the constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. As the delay in the case on hand is a clear infraction of the constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the impugned detention order deserves to be interfered with and set aside.
9. Ergo, the sequitur is, the impugned detention order dated 07.10.2022 bearing PBMMSECA No.9/2022 is set aside and detenu Mr.Thanga Ganesan, male, aged 40 years, S/o Mr.Periyasamy, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
Captioned HCP is allowed on the above terms.
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....
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....
Procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India must be zealously watched and enforced, and any inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the representation can rend....
Procedural safeguards, including timely consideration of representations, are essential in detention orders to prevent violations of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of....
Delay in considering a detenu's representation violates constitutional rights, necessitating quashing of detention.
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
