VADIVEL MURUGAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu, namely, Padhinettu Ramachandran, aged 32 years, son of Chidambaram, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.4/Black Marketing Act/2016, dated 09.03.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent, detaining the detenu, under the provision of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980), branding him as a "Black Marketer", and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu and set him at liberty.

(2.) Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation of the detenu, has been received by the Government on 04.04.2016 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 05.04.2016. However, the remarks have been received by the Government only on 31.05.2016, after a delay of 56 days. He adds that the file was dealt with by the Minister concerned on 09.06.2016 and the rejection letter was communicated to the detenu on 10.06.2016. It is his further submission that as per the Proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were 19 intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervening holidays, still there is a delay of 37 days, 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 Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.

(3.) Resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 had submitted that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had further submitted that there was no deliberate delay on the part of the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the representation of the detenu. It is contended that such a delay is not fatal to the impugned detention order, as the authorities concerned are dealing with the file right from the date of receipt of the representation and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.