USHA NANDINI 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 2nd respondent, dated 07.01.2013, made in C3.D.O.NO. 2 of 2013, quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's husband, namely, Parthiban, son of Thavamanickam, aged 32 years, who is confined in the Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and to set him at liberty. The detenu, namely, Parthiban, son of Thavamanickam, 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 C3.D.O.NO. 2 of 2013, dated 07.01.2013. In view of the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 07.01.2013, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Vellore.

(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 2nd respondent, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent, on 07.01.2013, is liable to be set aside, merely on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation, dated 11.1.2013, made on behalf of the detenu.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the representation, dated 11.1.2013, made on behalf of the detenu, had been received by the 2nd respondent, on 24.1.2013. Remarks were called for, from the Sponsoring Authority, on 29.1.2013. The Sponsoring Authority had furnished the remarks, which were received, by the 2nd respondent, on 12.2.2013. Thereafter, the Government, by its order, dated 21.2.2013, had rejected the representation of the detenu. Thus, there is an unexplained and undue delay between 29.1.2013 and 12.2.2013 and also between 12.2.2013 and 21.2.2013. Though the remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority, on 29.1.2013, the remarks were received by the 2nd respondent only, on 12.2.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, i.e. 2.2.2013, 3.2.2013, 9.2.2013 and 10.2.2013, there has been an actual delay of ten days in receiving the remarks from the sponsoring authority. Further, after receipt of the remarks, i.e. on 12.2.2013, the representation of the detenu was rejected by the Government only, on 21.2.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, i.e. 16.2.2013 and 17.2.2013, there has been an actual delay of seven 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 17 days would vitiate the detention order passed by the detaining authority.