Janani v. The Additional Secretary to the Government of India
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore. Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2359 of 20236.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID Police Station, Tirupathur & District. ... RespondentsPrayer: Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance…
- Para 77. 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…
- Para 99. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the third respondent, in C3.D.O.No.32/2023, dated 22.11.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Prabu, aged 39 years, S/o.Chennakesavan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required…
Judgment
H.C.P.No.2359 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26.02.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.2359 of 2023 Janani... Petitioner/wife of the detenueVs.
The Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Development of Consumer Affairs),Room No.270, "Krishi Bhavan",New Delhi-110 001.
The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
The District Collector & District Magistrate, Thirupathur District, Thirupathur.
The Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur District, Thirupathur.
The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore. Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2359 of 20236.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID Police Station, Tirupathur & 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 22.11.2023 in C3.D.O.No.32/2023 against the petitioner's husband viz., Prabu, Male aged 39 years, S/o.Chennakesavan, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenue before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.D.BalajiFor Respondents: Mr.E. Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. AravindORDERM.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu viz., Prabu, aged 39 years, S/o.Chennakesavan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the third respondent dated Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2359 of 202322.11.2023 slapped on her husband, 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 12.12.2023. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation is dated 12.12.2023, the same has been received by the Government only on 15.12.2023; the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on 31.01.2024 and the Minister concerned dealt with the file only on 07.02.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 07.02.2024 and sent to the detenu on 07.02.2024. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the delay of 4 days in considering the representation remains unexplained and the same vitiates the detention order.
In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2359 of 2023 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 12.12.2023, which was received by the Government on 15.12.2023 and further, the Minister concerned had dealt with the file of the detenu only on 07.02.2024 and the Rejection Letter was sent to the detenu on 07.02.2024. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of 4 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. This delay of 4 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 4 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.2359 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 4 days has not been properly explained at all.
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', Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2359 of 2023in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India clearly shows the concern of the 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.
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.
Operative part
Accordingly, the detention order passed by the third respondent, in C3.D.O.No.32/2023, dated 22.11.2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Prabu, aged 39 years, S/o.Chennakesavan, 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] 26.02.2024Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NoAnuPage 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2359 of 2023To1.The Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Development of Consumer Affairs),Room No.270, "Krishi Bhavan",New Delhi-110 001.2.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,2nd Floor, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.3.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Thirupathur District, Thirupathur. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur District, Thirupathur. 5. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore. 6. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID Police Station, Tirupathur & District. 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2359 of 2023M.S.RAMESH, J.andSUNDER MOHAN, J.Anu H.C.P.No.2359 of 202326.02.2024Page 8 of 8
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 22, 22(5), 226; Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 26 Feb 2024. The bench was M S RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN, C ARAVINDORDERM S RAMESH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.