Chitra v. The District Collector andDistrict Magistrate Cuddalore District Cuddalore & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 8-7-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNANHCP No.456 of 2009Chitra.. Petitioner vs1.The District Collector andDistrict Magistrate Cuddalore District Cuddalore.2.The State represented by Secretary to Government Tamil Nadu Cooperative, Foodand Consumer ProtectionDepartment Secretariat, Chennai.3.The Union of India Represented by its Secretary, Department of ConsumerAffairs, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi... Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling forthe records relating to detention order in C3/D.O./13/2009 dated7.3.2009 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and directthe respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner'shusband Nalamaharajan, S/o. Ramasamy, Hindu aged 50 years, nowconfined in Central Prison, Cuddalore and set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.J.KaruppiahFor Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public Prosecutor for RR1 & 2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)Seeking a writ of habeas corpus one Mrs.Chitra, the wife of thedetenu Nalamaharajan, has brought forth this petition challenging theorder of detention made by the first respondent in C3/D.O./13/2009dated 7.3.2009, terming him as a Black Marketeer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner andlooked into all the materials available including the order underchallenge.3.It is not in controversy that the first respondent, theDistrict Collector and District Magistrate of Cuddalore District, haspassed an order of detention on 7.3.2009, terming the petitioner'shusband 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.4.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 previous Sales Assistant namely the detenu was presentlyemployed at Thittagudi Saravanabava Fair Price Shop from the date1.1.2009, and he was employed at Eraiyur Fair Price Shop earlier forthe period from 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2008. 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.5.On perusal of the entire materials available, the detainingauthority was satisfied that the activities of the detenu wereprejudicial 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.Assailing the order under challenge, the learned Counselraised the following two points:(i) Admittedly, two pre-detention representations were made bythe wife of the detenu one to the District Collector, Collector, andthe other to the District Collector, Villupuram, which is alsoadmitted in the course of the order itself. While it was claimedthat such representations were actually considered, there was nothingto indicate that the order of rejection of the representation made bythe authority was placed before the Advisory Board, and the order isthus infirm.(ii) When the detention order was served upon the detenu, a copyof the translated version in Tamil was also served upon him. Acomparison would clearly indicate that paragraph 6 of the order asfound in the Tamil version is actually a new introduction since it isnot found in the English version. Under the circumstances, it didnot enable the detenu to understand the contents of the originalorder that was made by the detaining authority. Therefore, the orderis infirm, and it has got to be set aside. 7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor onthe above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made. 8.As seen above, the order challenge came to be passed againstone Nalamaharajan 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 following two reasons.9.Firstly, as could be seen from the impugned order, there weretwo pre-detention representations made by the petitioner-wife one tothe Collector, Villupuram, and the other to the Collector, Cuddalore.Though it is found that they were actually considered, and order ofrejection was made, nothing is available to indicate that they wereactually placed before the Advisory Board. Needless to say in agiven case where any pre-detention representation was made, and itwas also claimed by the State that the representation was actuallyconsidered, a duty is cast upon the authority to place such an orderof rejection before the Advisory Board. So long as no material isavailable to indicate so, this Court has to agree with the contentionput forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10.Secondly, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel,paragraph 6 of the order as found in the Tamil version is not foundin the original order which is in English. Thus it would be quiteclear that paragraph 6 in the Tamil version, though it is claimed tobe a translated version of the English form, was an introduction.Needless to say that Tamil version is to be prepared and served uponthe detenu in order to enable him to understand the contents of theoriginal order. In the instant case, such an introduction ofparagraph 6 which was not available in the English version, would nothave enabled the detenu to understand the original order. It caneven be stated that it would have caused confusion rather. ThisCourt is of the view that both the above grounds are available to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner to set aside the order.11.Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed settingaside the order of the first respondent. The detenu is directed tobe set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required inconnection with any other case. Sd/- Asst. Registrar / True Copy / Sub.Asst Registrar nsvTo:1.The District Collector andDistrict Magistrate Cuddalore District Cuddalore.2.The Secretary to Government Tamil Nadu Cooperative, Food and Consumer Protection Department Chennai.3.The Secretary,Union of India, Department of ConsumerAffairs, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.4.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Cuddalore (in duplicate for communication to detenu)5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.HCP No.456 of 2009BKY(CO)EM/14.7.09