K NARAYANAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT, TIRUNELVELI, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother-in-law of the detenu seeking for a direction, directing the respondents herein to produce the detenu K. Shanmugam, S/o. Kailasa Thevar, aged about 47 years, who has been termed as "Black Marketeer", now confined in Central Prison, Palayamcottai and call for records pertaining to the impugned order of detention in MHS Confdl. No. 33/201 dated 14.07.2011 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and set the detenu at liberty.

(2.) We have heard Mr.S.Saji Bino, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Ramar, learned Senior standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Irulappan, learned Central Government standing counsel appearing for the respondents R3 and 4.

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the impugned order of detention, passed under Act 7 of 1980, terming the detenu K.Shanmugam, as "Black Marketeer" is not sustainable. He would further submit that the detaining authority has failed to see the real causes for detaining the detenu under the said Act. He would vehemently stress in his argument that the representation, given by the petitioner on 19.07.2011, was received by the Government on 21.07.2011 and remarks was called for on 22.07.2011 and till date, the remarks has not been submitted, which resulted in not considering the representation before approval of the detention by the Government. He would further submit in his argument that this delay cum negligence would certainly vitiate the detention order since it has not been explained in the counter. He would also refer to the judgment of this Court in Sumaiya Vs. the Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort. St. George, Chennai-9,2007 2 MWN(Cri) 145(DB) that even a three days delay in considering the representation is fatal to the detention order passed. He would further submit that the unexplained delay caused in considering the representation would vitiate the detention order and several judgments of this Court have categorically laid down to that effect and therefore, the detention order, passed by the detaining authority, has no legs to stand. He would further submit that the detenu is now put in the jail under the guise of detention order which is illegal and hence, the petition filed by the wife of the detenu may be allowed and the detention order has to be quashed and the detenu may be set at liberty.