Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
Venkatesan - Appellant
Versus
The Additional Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs), New Delhi & Others - Respondents
H.C.P. No. 2578 of 2022
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Habeas Corpus Petition - Preventive Detention - Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act No.7 of 1980) - Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Fact of the Case:
The father of the detenu filed a Habeas Corpus Petition challenging a preventive detention order made under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The impugned detention order was based on alleged offenses under specific sections of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a delay of 25 days in considering the representation sent regarding the impugned detention order, which vitiated the order. The court emphasized that the delay in considering representation in preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in considering the representation sent regarding the impugned detention order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the delay of 25 days in considering the representation vitiates the impugned detention order, emphasizing that there is no fixed number of days as a straight jacket formula for such cases.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the impugned detention order was set aside. The detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
JUDGMENT
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent in his office ref.C3.D.O.No.117/2022 dated 17.11.2022 against the petitioner''s son Thiru.Rajesh, s/o.Venkatesan aged about 41 years at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Hon''ble Court and set him at liberty.)
M. Sundar, J.
Captioned ''Habeas Corpus Petition'' [''HCP'' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by father of detenu assailing a ''preventive detention order dated 17.11.2022 bearing reference C3.D.O.No.117/2022'' [hereinafter ''impugned detention order'' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, sixth respondent is the sponsoring authority and third respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by third respondent.
2. Impugned detention order has been made by the Detaining Authority on the premise that the detenu is a ''Black Marketeer'' vide ''Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act No.7 of 1980)'' [hereinafter ''Black Marketing and EC Act'' for the sake of convenience and clarity].
3. There is one adverse case and one ground case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.241 of 2022 on the file of Civil Supplies CID, Vellore for alleged offences under Sections 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.
5. Though several grounds have been urged in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing exhorted one point in his campaign against the impugned detention order and that one point turns on delay in considering a representation sent qua impugned detention order.
6. Responding to the aforementioned submission, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to the contrary and placed before us a list of dates and the details of the same are as follows:
| 'Representation dated | 14.12.2022 |
| Representation received date | 20.12.2022 |
| Remarks called on | 22.12.2022 |
| Reminder date | ................ |
| Remarks received on | 27.01.2023 |
| File submitted on | 31.01.2023 |
| Under Secretary dealt with on | 01.02.2023 |
| Deputy Secretary dealt with on | 01.02.2023 |
| Principal Secretary dealt with on | 01.02.2023 |
| Secretary Law dealt with on | 03.02.2023 |
| Minister for Food and Civil supplies | 06.02.2023 |
| Rejection letter prepared on | 07.02.2023 |
| Rejection letter sent to the detenu on (through e-mail) | 07.02.2023 |
Government Holidays Falls on:
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, 26.01.2023, 28.01.2023, 29.01.2023, 04.02.2023 and 05.02.2023''
7. We find that even if the intervening 17 public/Government holidays 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, 26.01.2023, 28.01.2023, 29.01.2023, 04.02.2023 and 05.02.2023 are excluded, there is a delay of 25 days in considering the representation. We make it clear that the delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively. It has to be decided qualita
The delay in considering representation in preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Delay in considering a representation regarding a preventive detention order can vitiate the detention order and must be decided qualitatively based on the facts and circumstances.
The delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively but qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances, and the trajectory....
The delay in considering a representation against a preventive detention order, which vitiates the impugned detention order.
The delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively, but has to be decided qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances,....
The delay in considering the representation against a preventive detention order must be justified and must not violate the detenu's rights under the Constitution of India.
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....
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
