THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No

H.C.P.No.358 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 04.06.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANH.C.P.No.358 of 2025Deepa ... PetitionerVs.1.Government of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.3.The Superintendent of Police,Dharmapuri District.4.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Salem.5.Secretary to Government of India,Ministry of Consumer Affairs,Food and Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs)No.270, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi – 110 001.6.Additional Secretary to Government of India,Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.358 of 2025Ministry of Consumer Affairs,Food and Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs),No.270, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi – 110 001.7.The Inspector of Police,Dharmapuri CSCID Police Station,Dharmapuri District,Crime No.18 of 2025 ... RespondentsPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in S.C.No.02/2025/C1 dated 08.02.2025 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Manivannan, S/o.Ganesan, aged about 38 years, who is now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.S.SilambuselvanFor R1 to R4 & R7: Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor For R5 & R6: Mr.A.S.Vijayaragavan, Senior Panel CounselORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.S. RAMESH, J.)The petitioner herein, who is the wife of the detenu namely Manivannan, aged about 38 years, S/o.Ganesan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.358 of 2025dated 08.02.2025 issued against her husband, branding him as "Black Marketeer" under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980).2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is stated that the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the detenu was furnished with improper translated copy of a vital document. Hence, it is submitted that the detenu was deprived of making effective representation.4. On a perusal of the Booklet particularly in page No.76, it is seen that the tabular column is partially in Tamil and partially in English and its proper translated copy in vernacular language has not been furnished to the detenu. This non-furnishing of the copy of the vital document would deprive the detenu of making effective representation to the authorities against the order of detention. Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.358 of 20255. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Powanammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu' reported in '(1999) 2 SCC 413'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the safeguards embodied in Article 22[5] of the Constitution, observed that the detenu should be afforded an opportunity of making representation effectively against the Detention Order and that, the failure to supply every material in the language which can be understood by the detenu, is imperative. In the said context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Paragraphs 9 and 16 {as in SCC journal} as follows:“9.However, this Court has maintained a distinction between a document which has been relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention and a document which finds a mere reference in the grounds of detention. Whereas the non-supply of a copy of the document relied upon in the grounds of detention has been held to be fatal to continued detention, the detenu need not show that any prejudice is caused to him. This is because the non-supply of such a document would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making an effective representation against the order. But it would not be so where the document merely finds a reference in the order of Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.358 of 2025detention or among the grounds thereof. In such a case, the detenu's complaint of non-supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language......16.For the above reasons, in our view, the non-supply of the Tamil version of the English document, on the facts and in the circumstances, renders her continued detention illegal. We, therefore, direct that the detenue be set free forthwith unless she is required to be detained in any other case. The appeal is accordingly allowed.”6. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the detention order is liable to be quashed.7. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 08.02.2025 in S.C.No.02/2025/C1, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.358 of 2025Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Manivannan, aged about 38 years, S/o.Ganesan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R, J.] [V.L.N, J.] 04.06.2025 Index: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoSniPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.358 of 2025To1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.3.The Superintendent of Police,Dharmapuri District.4.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison, Salem.5.Secretary to Government of India,Ministry of Consumer Affairs,Food and Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs)No.270, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi – 110 001.6.Additional Secretary to Government of India,Ministry of Consumer Affairs,Food and Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs),No.270, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi – 110 001.7.The Inspector of Police,Dharmapuri CSCID Police Station,Dharmapuri District,8.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.9.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order),Chennai – 600 009.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.358 of 2025M.S.RAMESH, J.andV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.SniH.C.P.No.358 of 202504.06.2025Page 8 of 8