Selvaraj v. The Secretary to the Government Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 3.1.2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIHabeas Corpus Petition No.1574 of 2007Selvaraj.. Petitionervs.1. The Secretary to the Government Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli.3. The Secretary to the Government Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of India New Delhi. .. RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingfor a Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.-----For Petitioner : Mr.V.ParthibanFor Respondents1&2 : Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.P.Kumaresan, ACGSC -R3----- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R(Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, Raju, whowas detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, pursuant to theorder of detention dated 16.10.2007 passed under Section 3(2)(a)read with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing andMaintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, (Act17 of 1980) branding him as 'Black Marketeer', has filed thiswrit petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call forthe records in connection with the order of detention dated16.10.2007 passed by the second respondent inRef.No.PBMMSMEC/Act/CMP.No.02/2007, to set aside the same and todirect the respondents to produce the above said detenu beforethis Court and set him at liberty.2. According to the detaining authority, viz., the secondrespondent, the ground case is said to have taken place on17.9.2007. On receipt of credible information that theprovisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are being violatedor may be violated, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Unit,Tiruchirappalli along with his police party conducted vehiclecheck near Ayyampalayam at Tiruchirapalli-Musiri main road,during which a lorry was intercepted and 130 bags of rice meantfor Public Distribution System were found in that lorry. Duringinterrogation, the detenu gave a voluntary statement admittingthe offence, on the basis of which a case was registered inTiruchirappalli CSCID Crime No.381/07 under Clause 6(4) of TNSC(RDCS) Order 1982 read with Section 7(1) a (ii) of EssentialCommodities Act, 1955. The detenu was arrested and sent forjudicial remand. 3. The second respondent, taking note of the three adversecases of alike nature in Crime Nos.564/2006, 107/2007 and297/1007 on the file of Tiruchirappalli CSCID and havingsatisfied that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial tothe maintenance of supplies of essential commodities, under thePublic Distribution System, passed the detention order under theprovisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenanceof Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, branding him as'Black Marketeer'. Hence, the present petition.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inviting ourattention to para 4 of the grounds of detention that, viz.,"It is seen that in more than one occasionThiru.V.Raju has been found to be involved in procuringPDS rice meant for poor public and selling the same in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ black market for pecuniary gain. Notwithstanding thepolice report, the Revenue Divisional Oficer, Lalgudi,was asked to conduct a detailed field enquiry andsubmit a report on the antecedents and activities ofthe detenu. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudihas confirmed that the detenu has been engaged inprocuring and selling of PDS rice and has also beenacting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance ofSupplies of Commodities Essential to the community..."contends that even though the detaining authority relied upon thereport of the Revenue Divisional Officer in the grounds ofdetention, he has not furnished a copy of the same in spite ofthe specific request of the detenu in his representation dated25.10.2007. According to the learned counsel, in view of the nonsupply of the essential document viz., report of the RevenueDivisional Officer, the detenu was not in a position to make aneffective representation and hence the order of detentionvitiates. In support of his contention, the learned counsel forthe petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court inPOWNAMMAL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER [A.I.R. 1999 SC618]. 5. On the above point, we heard the learned AdditionalCentral Government Standing Counsel appearing for the thirdrespondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearingfor respondents 1 and 2.6. In POWNAMMAL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, cited supra, wherethe Tamil version of the remand order, which is a relied upondocument, was not supplied to the detenu even though it wasdemanded by the detenu, the Apex Court held thus -" 15. Adverting to the facts of this case, theappellant has made a representation for supply of Tamilversion of the copy of order of remand and specificallystated that the detenue could not understand Englishlanguage. Admittedly, Tamil version of order of remandwas not furnished to her. A perusal of the groundsshows that the order of remand was relied upon by thesecond respondent to reach subjective satisfaction, sothe detenue need not show that any prejudice was causedto her due to non-supply of the Tamil version of orderof remand. Therefore, the High Court is not correct inholding that non-furnishing of the copy of the order ofremand would not in any way prejudice the detenue."7.1. That apart, a Division Bench of this Court in anunreported decision in H.C.P.No.1256 of 2006 (between Maheswariv. The Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Dept. and others), by order dated 5.2.2007, while considering asimilar case of non-furnishing of Revenue Divisional Officer'sReport as to the antecedents and activities of the detenu, heldthat the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is a vitaldocument and non-supply of such document to the detenu wouldcertainly deprive his valuable right to make an effectiverepresentation to the Government or the Advisory Board. 7.2. The above view was subsequently followed by this Courtin unreported decisions in H.C.P.No.320 of 2007 (between Balajiv. State and others) by order dated 4.7.2007 and in H.C.P.No.539of 2007 (between Kuppandi @ Kuppusami v. State and others) byorder dated 16.8.2007.8. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, as seen from para 4 ofthe grounds of detention, extracted above, the detainingauthority had relied upon the report of the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Lalgudi. But, when the detenu in his representationdated 25.10.2007 had specifically asked for a copy of the saidreport, the detaining authority had rejected the representationdated 25.10.2007 on the ground that the said report is aconfidential report, which has deprived of the opportunity of thedetenu to submit his effective representation objecting to theorder of detention. Both the learned Additional CentralGovernment Standing Counsel and the learned Additional PublicProsecutor also concede that the said document was not furnishedto the detenu.9. In that view of the matter, we are convinced that thedetaining authority has failed to take into consideration thesaid non-furnishing of a vital document to the detenu, whichprejudiced the detenu in making his effective representation andthus, vitiates the impugned order of detention. Hence, we areinclined to allow this writ petition on this ground.10. In the result, the habeas corpus petition is allowed andthe order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed tobe set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connectionwith any other case.ATRSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to the Government Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli.3. The Secretary to the Government Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of India New Delhi.4. The Secretary to Govt., (Public Law & Order) Dept., Fort St George, Chennai 9.5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.•1 cc to Mr. C. Prakasam, Advocate SR No. 410HCP No.1574 of 2007RSV(CO)SR/21.1.2008