LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-318

RATHNA Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ORS.

Decided On March 18, 2015
RATHNA Appellant
V/S
The Secretary To Government Department Of Co -Operation, Food And Consumer Protection And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the mother of the detenu, namely, R. Saravanan, S/o. Ravi, male, aged 30 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Cr.M.P. No. 05/2014(CS) dated 01.11.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) r/w 3(2)(b) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980), branding him as a "Black Marketeer", in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.

(2.) EVEN though Mr. W. Camyles Gandhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds, in assailing the impugned order of detention, he confined his arguments only on the ground that there is unexplained delay in considering and disposing of the representation of the detenu, which would vitiate the impugned detention order.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 05.11.2014, has been received by the Government on 10.11.2014 and remarks were called for on 11.11.2014. But, the remarks were received only on 17.11.2014, after a delay of 5 days. The learned counsel further submitted that the file was submitted to the Secretary on 20.11.2014, the Minister has dealt with the said file of the detenu on 21.11.2014 and rejected the representation on the same day. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 2 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 3 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained. The unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in : (1999) 1 SCC 417.