LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-285

A DHANALAKSHMI W O ADAIKALAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Decided On December 04, 2006
A. DHANALAKSHMI Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu by name Adaikalam, son of Shanmugavel Nadar, who is detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980) by the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Madurai, in his proceedings dated 18.08.2006, branding him as a "black marketeer". THE order of detention is questioned mainly on the ground that the application for bail was not supplied to the detenu and therefore the detenu could not make an effective representation to the detaining authority, the Government and the Advisory Board.

(2.) THE said question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in M.Ahamedkutty v. Union of India [(1990) 2 SCC 1] and the Apex Court has held as follows: "Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired, and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of the detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but no hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case."

(3.) RECENTLY, the very same question came to be considered by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2006) 2 SCC (cri) 90 (Sunil Jain v. Union of India) and the Apex Court has again reiterated that it is not in all cases the bail application should be furnished to the detenu.