P.MUTHUKUMARAN Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent, dated 25.12.2012, made in C3.D.O.No.89 of 2012, quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's father, namely, VLT @ Pasupathy, son of Thobasamy Chettiar, aged 65 years, who is confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

(2.) THE detenu, namely, VLT @ Pasupathy, son of Thobasamy Chettiar, has been detained, under Section 3[1] read with Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980), pursuant to the order passed by the 3rd respondent, in his proceedings, in C3.D.O.No.89 of 2012, dated 25.12.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the 3rd respondent, dated 25.12.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Vellore.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the representation, dated 8.1.2013, made on behalf of the detenu, had been received by the 2nd respondent, on 18.1.2013. Remarks were called for, from the Sponsoring Authority, on 22.1.2013. The Sponsoring Authority had furnished the remarks, which were received, by the 2nd respondent, on 9.2.2013. Thereafter, the Government, by its order, dated 22.2.2013, had rejected the representation of the detenu. Thus, there is an unexplained and undue delay between 22.1.2013 and 9.2.2013 and also between 9.2.2013 and 22.2.2013. Though the remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority, on 22.1.2013, the remarks were received by the 2nd respondent only, on 9.2.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, i.e. 25.1.2013, 26.1.2013, 27.1.2013, 2.2.2013 and 3.2.2013, there has been an actual delay of twelve days in receiving the remarks from the sponsoring authority. Further, after receipt of the remarks, i.e. on 9.2.2013, the representation of the detenu was rejected by the Government only on 22.2.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, i.e. 10.2.2013, 16.2.2013 and 17.2.2013, there has been an actual delay of ten days in passing the order on the representation made on behalf of the detenu. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the actual delay of 22 days would vitiate the detention order passed by the detaining authority.