SHARMILA Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the wife of the detenu-S. Hakim @ Mohammed Hakkim. The Petitioner has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking for the relief of quashing the Detention Order in P.B.M.M.S.E.C./ACT/C.M.P. No. 02/2011 dated 23.06.2011 passed by the third Respondent, slapped on her husband detaining him as a "Black Marketeer" as contemplated under the provisions of the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ("Act" in short).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the detention order passed by the third Respondent is wrong, illegal and without any basis and justification and it is also violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that there is a clear violation of the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act and as per the provision, the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order. He further submitted the detenu is unable to get the benefit of Section 14 of the Act which deals with revocation of detention order by the Central Government. He further submitted that a perusal of the detention order reveals that the detaining authority has relied on the R.D.O's report but a copy of the R.D.O's report was not given to the detenu. Therefore, there is clear violation of the provision of Section 8(1) of the Act. He further submitted that the detenu has made representation to all the Respondents, but the same was not considered by any of the authorities and therefore, there is violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Under the circumstances, the counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the order of detention passed by the detaining authority is wrong, illegal and it is a violation of the constitutional right. Therefore, the order of detention passed by the third Respondent has to be set aside.