THANGAVELAN Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT FOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the brother-in-law of the detenu, who has been detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980) as a "Black Marketeer" by the order of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar dated 5.1.2008.

(2.) THE detention order came to be passed on the basis of the ground case registered in Virudhunagar Civil Supplies CID Cr.No.842 of 2007 under Section 6(4) of the TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. THE grounds of detention do not refer to any adverse case in respect of the petitioner. In the ground case, it is averred that on 26.11.2007 at about 10.45 p.m., the Special Tahsildar, Flying Squad, Virudhunagar and his party and the Tahsildar, Aruppukottai and his party were on night patrol duty and on receipt of information, namely, that the rice meant for Public Distribution System were smuggled and kept in Anitha Modern Rice Mill belonging to one Thiru.Sudakar, the police party entered into the said mill and conducted check and found 182 bags of Public Distribution System boiled rice, each weighing 50 kgs., were loaded in a Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-41-H-1377 owned by one Smt.R.Manohari. On enquiry, it was revealed that the detenu had purchased the rice meant for Public Distribution System and had supplied to the said mill for being sold outside.

(3.) SECONDLY, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no imminent necessity for passing the detention order. In this context, the learned counsel would submit that the occurrence had taken place on 26.11.2007 and the detenu was arrested on 28.11.2007 and the certificate dated 29.11.2007 of the Food Inspector was obtained on 30.11.2007. However, the sponsoring authority has forwarded the report only on 2.1.2008 after nearly one month. The delay on the part of the sponsoring authority in not reporting the matter to the detaining authority for consideration is unexplained and therefore the detention order is vitiated.