MUTHUMEENA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, SECRETARIAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the wife of the detenu-Muthuramalingam. The Petitioner has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking for the relief of quashing the Detention Order No. 02/PBMMSEC/2011 dated 08.07.2011 passed by the second 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), on the ground that the detenu-Muthuramalingam has been engaged in the smuggling of Public Distribution System rice meant for public distribution system, which is an essential commodity as defined in Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and that it was being smuggled for sale at higher prices in Black Market with a view to make gain; that the activities of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community; his activities might endanger social security and stability and also pose an imminent threat to social order; that the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities against Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community in future.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the detention order passed by the second 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. He further submitted that the detenu has made representation to the Respondents 1 to 3, but the same was not considered by the first and third Respondents 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, according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the order of detention passed by the second Respondent has to be set aside.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1, 2 and 4 has submitted that the detaining authority has considered all the facts and circumstances and correctly detained the detenu, since the detenu has been engaged in the smuggling of public distribution system rice which is an essential commodity as defined in Essential Commodities Act 1955 and that it was smuggled for sale at higher prices in black market with a view to make gain. It is also stated that the activities of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and his activities might endanger social security and stability and also pose an imminent threat to social order. Therefore, the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities against the Act, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community in future. Therefore, the order of detention passed by the second Respondent is in accordance with law and hence the same has to be confirmed. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the third Respondent has also supported the case of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and argued on the same lines.