BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR H.C.P.(MD) No.1602 of 2023 Sharmila Banu ... Petitioner -vs-

1.The Additional Secretary Government of India Ministry of Consuer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan New Delhi-110 001

2.The Additional Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department Secretariat Chennai-600 009

3.The District Collector and District Magistrate Thanjavur District Thanjavur

4.The Inspector of Police Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department Thanjavur Unit Thanjavur District

5.The Superintendent Central Prison Tiruchirappalli-620 020 ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in detention order P.D.No. 70/2023, dated 26.11.2023, on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's husband, namely, Haja @ Hajamaideen, son of Abdul Wahab, aged 44 years, now confined in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankar For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India for R1 Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R2 to R5

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Haja @ Hajamaideen, son of Abdul Wahab, aged 44 years. The detenu has been detained by the third respondent by his order P.D.No.70/2023, dated 26.11.2023, holding him to be a "Black Marketer", as contemplated under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980).

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in the habeas corpus petition, learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner's representation dated Nil was received by the Government on 13.12.2023, the rejection letter was sent to the detenu only on 29.01.2024.

There is a delay of eighteen days, in Column Nos.7 to 10 of the Proforma, in considering the petitioner's representation. The said delay of eighteen days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the impugned detention order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition

5. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner dated Nil was received by the Government on 13.12.2023 and the rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 29.01.2024. As per the proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of eighteen days, in Column Nos.7 to 10 of the Proforma, in considering the representation of the petitioner and we find that the said delay remains unexplained. 6. It is trite law that the repre