VENNILA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SALEM CITY POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent, dated 14.12.2012, made in C.M.P. No. 68/Black marketer/Salem City/2012, quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's husband, viz., Karthik, S/o. Balakrishnan, aged 30 years, who is confined in the Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and to set him at liberty. The detenu, namely, Karthik, S/o. Balakrishnan, has been detained, under Section 3[1] r/w. Section 3(2)(b) 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 first respondent, in his proceedings C.M.P. No. 68/Black marketer/Salem City/2012, dated 14.12.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the first respondent, dated 14.12.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Salem.

(2.) Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the present Habeas Corpus petition, while challenging the order of detention, passed by the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order of detention passed by the first respondent, on 14.12.2012, is liable to be set aside, merely on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation, dated 14.12.2012, made on behalf of the detenu.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the representation, dated 14.12.2012, made on behalf of the detenu, had been received by the detaining authority, on 17.12.2012, and the said representation was received by the Section concerned, on 21.12.2012. Remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority, on 24.12.2012. The Sponsoring Authority had furnished the remarks, on 26.12.2012, and the remarks were sent to the Government on 27.12.2012, Thereafter, the Government, by its order dated 7.1.2013, had rejected the representation of the detenu. Thus, there is an unexplained delay between 27.12.2012 and 7.1.2013. Though the remarks have been sent to the Government by the detaining authority, on 27.12.2012, the representation of the detenu was rejected by the Government only on 7.1.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, i.e. 29.12.2012, 30.12.2012 and 1.1.2013, there has been an actual delay of eight days in passing the order on the representation made on behalf of the petitioner, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, would vitiate the detention order passed by the detaining authority.