J. Sumitha v. The Secretary to the Government Food

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATRE AT MADRASDATED:04.04.2006CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAMANDTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMARH.C.P.No.236 of 2006J. Sumitha.. Petitionervs.

The Secretary to the Government Food, Co.operation and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009.

The District Magistrate & District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore.

The Secretary to Government Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of India New Delhi... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas corpus as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr. B. Kumar, Senior counsel for Mr. C. PrakasamFor respondents: Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam1 & 2 Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) Mr. P. Kumaresan ACGSC for R.3ORDER(ORDER of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)The petitioner by name J. Sumitha, wife of the detenuJanarthanan, who was detained as a "Black Marketer" under Section 3 (2) (b) read with 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of EssentialCommodities Act, 1980, by the impugned proceedings dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

08.02.2006, challenges the order of detention in thispetition.2. Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel forthe petitioner, Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learnedGovernment Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standingcounsel for third respondent.3. After taking us through the grounds ofdetention and other connected materials, learned seniorcounsel for the petitioner has raised the followingcontentions: "(i) A reading of the confessionstatement of the detenu does not showthat he is in possession of rice bagspertaining to Public DistributionSystem (in short PDS). This relevantaspect has not been considered by the Detaining Authority while passing theorder of detention, accordingly, theimpugned detention order is liable tobe interfered on the ground of non-application of mind. He also contendedthat since the detenu has not purchasedPDS rice from the public, the relevantprovision, viz., 6(4) of the Tamil NaduScheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order,1982 (in short "Control Order") is notapplicable to the case of the detenu. (ii) Though the DetainingAuthority has heavily relied on the Quality certificate, certain Englishportions of it have not been properlytranslated in Tamil and supplied to thedetenu, hence, the detenu is not aposition to understand and makeeffective representation. (iii) Though an amendment /corrigendum was passed by the DistrictCollector on 10.02.2006, Tamil versionof the same has not been furnished tothe detenu, who knows only Tamil, whichalso vitiates the impugned detentionorder. (iv) The amendment/corrigendumdated 10.02.2006 of the DistrictCollector was not placed before the Government and there is no material toshow that the Government considered thesame before passing an order ofapproval on 15.02.2006." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Learned Government Advocate by placingrelevant materials met all the points.

Coming to the first contention, viz., non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, learned senior counsel for the petitioner heavily relied onthe confession statement of the detenu dated 03.02.2006,which is available at pages 77 and 79 of the paper booksupplied to the detenu. By drawing our attention to theabove said confession statement of the detenu, learnedsenior counsel has stated that after the sale of the PDSrice to the persons intended, anybody can deal with therice, including the purchase and sale from the personsconcerned. It is also his claim that in such an event itwill not have an impact on the PDS. On going through theconfession statement of the detenu and the relevantprovision, viz., 6(4) of the Control Order, we are unableto accept the said contention. In this regard, it isuseful to extract a portion of the confession statement ofthe detenu made on 03.02.2006, which reads as under.

Relevant provision under which the detenu wascharged is 6(4) of the Control Order. The said clausereads as under. "6. Supply of Scheduled Commodities.-(1) No person shall obtain in anyscheduled commodities on a family cardunless he-(i) registers himself with anauthorised dealer, and(ii) Complies with any otherdirections which may be issued in thisbehalf by the Government, the[Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection], the Collector, the Authorised Officer, or the Inspecting Officer as the case may be.2. ....3. ....4. No person shall purchase anyscheduled commodity obtained on afamily card. "It is also useful to refer the object and reasons forpassing Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution by Card System) Order 1982."Whereas the State Governments are ofopinion that for securing equitabledistribution of essential commodities, it is necessary and expedient toregulate the distribution of familycard; " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thus the object makes it clear that in order to secureequitable distribution of essential commodities, the StateGovernment has passed the above order. In the light of theabove provisions and in view of the confession statement ofthe detenu, it cannot be claimed that the act of the detenuwill not have an impact on PDS. When the PDS rice isintended for poor and weaker sections of the Society, thesame should be utilised by them only and it should not bediverted to others; the deviation or violation of the aboveobject undoubtedly will have an impact on PDS. In suchcircumstances, we are of the view that the conclusionarrived at by the Detaining Authority cannot be faultedwith; accordingly, we reject the first contention.

Coming to the second contention relating toquality certificate, the said certificate is available atpage 131 of the paper book. We verified the same. Thesaid certificate was certified by Assistant QualityInspector and Deputy Manager (Quality Control), afterproper examination relating to the quality and identity ofthe rice seized from the detenu. Further, it containsdetails relating to refractions and percentage. Aftermentioning the percentage in numerical value, the personswho issued the said certificate have also noted the same inwords. Though it is stated that the same are not readableand not translated in the language known to the detenu, asrightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, apart from the quality certificate, statements of twoofficers, viz., S. Soundar Rajan, Assistant QualityInspector and R. Marimuthu, Deputy Manager (QualityControl) have been enclosed along with the saidcertificate. The above said statement of two officersmakes it clear that sample rice seized from the detenu washanded over to them and after examination, they arrived aconclusion that the seized rice is intended for PDS andissued certificate for the same. The statements of boththe officers are available at pages 133 and 135 of thepaper book and the same are in Tamil. If we read thecontents of the Quality certificate as well as thestatements of both the officers, who issued the saidcertificate, we are satisfied that there will not be anyconfusion or doubt in understanding the contents of thesame. Accordingly, we are unable to accept the secondcontention raised by the learned senior counsel for thepetitioner.

Coming to the third contention, it is truethat after the order dated 08.02.2006, the DistrictMagistrate / District Collector, Coimbatore has passed anamendment dated 10.02.2006. The said amendment relates topara 3 of the detention order dated 08.02.2006. A perusalof the amendment dated 10.02.2006 shows that whiledescribing the relevant provisions it gives power to theauthority for passing the order. In the order dated08.02.2006 it is stated that "Now therefore in exercise of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the powers conferred under Section 3(2)(b) read with 3(1)of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980." In theamendment order dated 10.02.2006, the same has beenclarified as 3(2)(a). It is true that while passing theamendment on 10.02.2006, the District Magistrate has notfurnished the Tamil version of the said order. LearnedGovernment Advocate rightly pointed out that even in theorder dated 08.02.2006, the mistake relating to theprovision occurred only in English version of the detentionorder and in the Tamil version the same has been correctlystated as 3(2)(a). In such circumstances, even in theabsence of supply of Tamil version of the amendment orderdated 10.02.2006, we are of the view that the detenu is noway prejudiced in making representation. Accordingly, wereject the said contention also.

Finally, learned senior counsel for thepetitioner submitted that the amendment dated 10.02.2006was not placed before the Government at the time of passingof order approving the detention order dated 08.02.2006.We verified the approval order of the Government dated15.02.2006. Though in the preamble of the order the Government have referred to the order of the DistrictMagistrate/District Collector dated 08.02.2006, in the bodyof the order (even in first paragraph) there is a specificreference to the correct provision, viz., 3(2)(a). In suchcircumstances, it cannot be contended that the Governmenthad not taken note of the amendment dated 10.02.2006.Accordingly, we reject the said contention also. In the light of what is stated above, we do not findany error, infirmity or valid ground for interference. Consequently, this habeas corpus petition fails and thesame is dismissed.khSd/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 Magistrate & District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore.3. The Secretary to Government Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of India New Delhi.4. The SuperintendentCentral Prison, Coimbatore5. The Public ProsecutorMadras+ one cc to Mr. c. Prakasam, Advocate sr no. 16829RL(CO)NM(18.04.2006) HCP.No.236 of 2006