MADANRAJ Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is friend of the detenu viz., T. Ganeshrajan S/o Thiyagarajan Nadar, who has been branded as a 'Black Marketeer' and detained by means of a detention order passed by the third respondent in proceedings No. PA to DSO Confdl.02/2008 dated 22.01.2008.

(2.) THE facts of the Ground case go to the effect that on 30.8.2007 at about 24.00 hours on a tip off the Inspector of Police (incharge) Civil supplies CID, Tirunelveli with his party and with the Special Revenue Inspector, Flying Squad, Thoothukudi, the Special Revenue Inspector, Civil Supplies, Thoothukudi, checked the godown by name 'Win Ware Housing' situated at No.4/28 G, Harbour Express Road, Thoothukudi and seized 1994 bags of Public Distribution system rice (each weighing 50 Kgs) and 4 lorries, used for the smuggling of Public Distribution System rice bags, bearing Registration Nos. TN 30 Y-4456, TN 69 Y-8357, TN 69 Y-5397 and TN 28 M-4556. In this regard, on the complaint of the the District Supply Officer, Thoothukudi, a case in Tirunelveli CSCID Cr.No.336/07 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a) (ii) of E.C. Act 1955, was registered on 31.08.2007. Investigation disclosed that the detenu viz., Ganeshrajan S/o M. Thiyagarajan Nadar of Kovilpatty has taken the building (where the public distribution system rice bags are seized) for rent and smuggled 1994bags of Public Distribution System rice and kept inside the godown 'Winware Housing'. All the 1994 bags of Public Distribution System rice were handed over to the TNCSC Godown, Port, Thoothukudi on 31.8.2007. THE samples were collected from the seized Public Distribution Rice bags and sent to the TNCSC, Regional Laboratory, Thoothukudi for analysis. THE quality Inspector of Regional Laboratory has opined that the samples are 'PDS rice'.

(3.) THE next limb of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his representation addressed to the State Government and the Orders passed thereon have not been placed before the Advisory Board and hence he is very much prejudiced by the lapse on the part of the authorities concerned. THE petitioner had preferred a representation on 7.2.2008 addressed to the second respondent which was received by the said authority on 14.2.2008 and the same was considered by the Government. However, it was rejected on 5.3.2008 and the fact of result was intimated to the detenu on 7.3.2008. THEre is no delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation. THE detention order passed on 22.01.2008 was duly approved by the State Government on 31.1.2008. This Court has gone through the relavant file which contains all the materials pertaining to this case. THE proceedings of the Advisory Board held on 18.2.2008 is available among the file, in which it has been clearly mentioned that the materials available on record do prima facie show the involvement of the detenu in the violation alleged. A careful reading of the said proceedings would pave way to conclude that before passing the proceedings, the Chairman and Members of the Advisory Board have thoroughly gone through the file, considered all the materials available thereon and passed the same.