S.Saravanan v. By its Secretary to Government Cooperative

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 8-7-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANHCP No.351 of 2009S.Saravanan.. Petitioner vs1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Cooperative, Food & Consumer Protection Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

The District Magistrate and District Collector Cuddalore, Cuddalore District... Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling forthe records in detention order passed in C3/D.O./14/2009 dated7.3.2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside thesame and direct the respondents to produce the body of thepetitioner's father P.Sami Durai, now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.C.Ram KumarFor Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Additional PublicProsecutor for RR1 & 2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)Seeking a writ of habeas corpus one Mr.Saravanan, the son of thedetenu Sami Durai, has brought forth this petition challenging theorder of detention made by the second respondent in C3/D.O./14/2009dated 7.3.2009 terming him as a Black Marketeer. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner andlooked into all the materials available including the order underchallenge.

It is not in controversy that the second respondent, the District Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District, haspassed an order of detention on 7.3.2009, terming the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ father as a Black Marketeer since his activities were prejudicial tothe maintenance of public supplies of Essential Commodities to thepublic and it would cause revenue loss, and hence there arosecompelling necessity to detain him under Sec.3(1) of the Preventionof Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of EssentialCommodities Act, 1980 in order to prevent him from acting in anymanner prejudicial to the maintenance of public supplies of essentialcommodities to the public in future and hence the order came to bepassed.

A perusal of the materials would indicate that on 10.2.2009 atabout 2000 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police, CSCID, Cuddalore, onreceipt of a complaint about the grave irregularities found in aCooperative Saravanabava Fair Price Shop situated at Thittagudi Talukin Eraiyur Sugar Mill compound, made an inspection, and it was foundthat in the 'A' Register maintained in the shop, pages werestealthily printed and added in the last portion, and after furthercheck and verification over all the ration cards belonging to thesaid fair price shop with the aid of computer, it was detected thatthe said 'A' Register wrongly contained entries of huge family rationcards which were not belonging to the said Eraiyur SaravanabavaCooperative Fair Price Shop, but those ration cards were actuallyallotted to the fair price shop situated at various Taluks other thanTittagudi Taluk in the District. Apart from that, 'A' Registercontained the necessary ration card numbers, but it was criminallyplanned that instead of giving original names, some other fictitiousnames were being entered in the register. Further, it was found thatin respect of the supplies of essential commodities alone, therevenue loss per month was Rs.21,362.40 and the total loss for thewhole three years would be Rs.7,69,046/-. Equally, it was also foundthat the present Sales Assistant namely the detenu was employed inthe said fair price shop from 1.1.2009. On the basis of the reportgiven by Taluk Supplies Officer, Thittagudi, a case was registered byCSCID, Cuddalore, in Crime No.41/2009 under Sec.6(2)(3) of TNSC(RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 and 420 of IPC,and the necessary investigation was taken up. Thus therecommendation was made.

On perusal and scrutiny of the entire materials available, thedetaining authority was satisfied that the activities of the detenuwere prejudicial to the maintenance of public supplies of essentialcommodities to the public, and hence in order to prevent him fromdoing any such activities in future, he has got to be detained underthe enactment by terming him as a black marketeer. Accordingly theorder came to be passed.

Assailing the order under challenge, the learned Counsel wouldsubmit that when the detention order was served upon the detenu, acopy of the translated version in Tamil was also served upon him; that a comparison would clearly indicate that paragraph 6 as found inthe Tamil version is actually a new introduction since it is notfound in the English version; that under the circumstances, it didnot enable the detenu to understand the contents of the originalorder that was made by the detaining authority and therefore, theorder is infirm and it has got to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on theabove contentions and paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made.

As seen above, the order challenge came to be passed againstone Sami Durai branding him as a black marketeer as referred toabove. The Court after perusal of the entire materials available, isof the considered opinion that the order under challenge has got tobe set aside for the simple reason that as rightly pointed out by thelearned Counsel, paragraph 6 as found in the Tamil version is notfound in the original order which is in English. Thus it would bequite clear that paragraph 6 of the order in Tamil version, though itis claimed to be a translated version of the English form, was anintroduction. Needless to say that Tamil version is to be preparedand served upon the detenu in order to enable him to understand thecontents of the original order. In the instant case, such anintroduction of paragraph 6 in the Tamil version which was notavailable in the English version, would not have enabled the detenuto understand the original order. It can even be stated that itwould have caused confusion rather. This Court is of the view thaton this ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside.