LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-87

JEYAMANI Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVT

Decided On April 23, 2013
Jeyamani Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 31.12.2012, made in Cr.M.P.No.32/BM/2012[E1], quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's son, namely, J.P. @ Jeyaprakash @ Prakash, son on Jegadesan, aged 33 years, who is confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

(2.) THE detenu, namely, J.P. @ Jeyaprakash @ Prakash, son of Jegadesan, 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 2nd respondent, in his proceedings, in Cr.M.P.No.32/BM/2012[E1], dated 31.12.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 31.12.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the representation, dated 23.1.2013, made on behalf of the detenu, had been received by the 1st respondent, on 29.1.2013. Remarks had been called for, from the Sponsoring Authority, on 30.1.2013. However, the remarks had been received only on 18.2.2012. As such, there has been an unexplained and undue delay of 19 days in receiving the remarks, relating to the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, dated 23.1.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, i.e. 2.2.2013, 3.2.2013, 9.2.2013, 10.2.2013, 16.2.2013 and 17.2.2013, there has been an actual delay of 13 days in calling for the remarks, relating to the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, dated 23.1.2013. It is also noted that after receiving the remarks, on 18.2.2013, the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, had been rejected only on 27.2.2013, and it had been served on the detenu only on 4.3.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, i.e. 23.2.2013 and 24.2.2013, there is an actual delay of seven days in passing the orders on the representation of the detenu. Accordingly, there is an unexplained and undue delay, between 30.1.2013 and 18.2.2013 and also between 18.2.2013 and 27.2.2013. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the actual delay of 20 days would vitiate the detention order passed by the detaining authority.