the v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in

H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.02.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.2325 of 2023Geetha ... Petitioner / mother of the detenueVs.1.The Additional Secretary to Government of India,Ministry of Consumer Affairs,Food and Public Distribution,(Department of Consumer Affairs),Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi-110 001.2.The Principle Secretary to the Government,Food and Consumer Protection Department,II Floor, Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.3.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore,Vellore District. 4.The Superintendent of Police,Vellore District,Vellore. Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 20235.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Vellore, Vellore District. 6.The Inspector of Police,Civil Supply Crime Investigation Department,Vellore, Vellore District. ... RespondentsPrayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the third respondent dated 10.11.2023 in his office Ref.C3.D.O.No.113/2023 against the petitioner's son Thiru.Suresh, S/o.Dhanapal, aged about 35 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenue before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.E.KannadasanFor Respondents: Mr.E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. AravindORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Suresh, S/o.Dhanapal, aged about 35 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District, has come forward with this petition challenging Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023the detention order passed by the third respondent dated 10.11.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Black Marketeer" under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [Central Act No.7 of 1980].2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 24.11.2023. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 24.11.2023, the same has been received by the Government only on 30.11.2023; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 12.01.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file only on 19.01.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 19.01.2024 and sent to the detenu on 19.01.2024. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 6 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.4. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is dated 24.11.2023, which was received by the Government on 30.11.2023 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenu only on 19.01.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenu on 19.01.2024. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of 6 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 6 days in considering the petitioner's representation remains unexplained. 5. It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delay of 6 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 20236. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case (cited supra), it has been held as follows:"It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be " in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest."As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited Rajammal's case, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the authorities concerned. But, here the inordinate delay of 6 days has not been properly explained at all.7. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023the makers of the Constitution that the representation, made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay. 8. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner.9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the third respondent, in Ref.C3.D.O.No.113/2023, dated 10.11.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Suresh, S/o.Dhanapal, aged about 35 years, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 13.02.2024Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023To1.The Additional Secretary to Government of India,Ministry of Consumer Affairs,Food and Public Distribution,(Department of Consumer Affairs),Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi-110 001.2.The Principle Secretary to the Government,Food and Consumer Protection Department,II Floor, Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.3.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore,Vellore District. 4.The Superintendent of Police,Vellore District,Vellore. 5.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Vellore, Vellore District.6.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai. 7.The Inspector of Police,Civil Supply Crime Investigation Department,Vellore, Vellore District. 8.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.Anu H.C.P.No.2325 of 202313.02.2024Page 8 of 8

H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.02.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.2325 of 2023Geetha ... Petitioner / mother of the detenueVs.1.The Additional Secretary to Government of India,Ministry of Consumer Affairs,Food and Public Distribution,(Department of Consumer Affairs),Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi-110 001.2.The Principle Secretary to the Government,Food and Consumer Protection Department,II Floor, Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.3.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore,Vellore District. 4.The Superintendent of Police,Vellore District,Vellore. Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 20235.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Vellore, Vellore District. 6.The Inspector of Police,Civil Supply Crime Investigation Department,Vellore, Vellore District. ... RespondentsPrayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the third respondent dated 10.11.2023 in his office Ref.C3.D.O.No.113/2023 against the petitioner's son Thiru.Suresh, S/o.Dhanapal, aged about 35 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenue before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.E.KannadasanFor Respondents: Mr.E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. AravindORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Suresh, S/o.Dhanapal, aged about 35 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District, has come forward with this petition challenging Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023the detention order passed by the third respondent dated 10.11.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Black Marketeer" under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [Central Act No.7 of 1980].2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 24.11.2023. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 24.11.2023, the same has been received by the Government only on 30.11.2023; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 12.01.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file only on 19.01.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 19.01.2024 and sent to the detenu on 19.01.2024. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 6 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.4. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, we find that the representation of the petitioner is dated 24.11.2023, which was received by the Government on 30.11.2023 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenu only on 19.01.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenu on 19.01.2024. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of 6 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 6 days in considering the petitioner's representation remains unexplained. 5. It is trite law that the representation should be very expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without avoidable delay. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal. From the records produced, we find that no acceptable explanation has been offered for the delay of 6 days. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 20236. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case (cited supra), it has been held as follows:"It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words "as soon as may be " in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest."As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in above cited Rajammal's case, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the authorities concerned. But, here the inordinate delay of 6 days has not been properly explained at all.7. Further, in a recent decision in Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala-2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023the makers of the Constitution that the representation, made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay. 8. In the light of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground of delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation of the petitioner.9. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the third respondent, in Ref.C3.D.O.No.113/2023, dated 10.11.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Suresh, S/o.Dhanapal, aged about 35 years, confined at Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 13.02.2024Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023To1.The Additional Secretary to Government of India,Ministry of Consumer Affairs,Food and Public Distribution,(Department of Consumer Affairs),Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan,New Delhi-110 001.2.The Principle Secretary to the Government,Food and Consumer Protection Department,II Floor, Namakkal Kavingnar Maaligai,Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.3.The District Collector and District Magistrate of Vellore,Vellore District. 4.The Superintendent of Police,Vellore District,Vellore. 5.The Superintendent of Prison,Central Prison,Vellore, Vellore District.6.The Joint Secretary,Law and Order Department,Secretariat, Chennai. 7.The Inspector of Police,Civil Supply Crime Investigation Department,Vellore, Vellore District. 8.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2325 of 2023M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.Anu H.C.P.No.2325 of 202313.02.2024Page 8 of 8