or the v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in

H.C.P.No.2496 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 11.03.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.2496 of 2023 Deepa … Petitioner Vs.1.The Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) Room No.270, "Krish 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. District Collector & District Magistrate, Thirupathur District, Thirupathur.4. The Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur District, Thirupathur.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 20235. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.6. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID Police Station, Thirupathur District. … RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the third respondent dated 06.12.2023 in C3.D.O. No.34/2023 against the petitioner's son Balaji @ Balasubramani, Male aged 28 years, S/o. Babu, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.D. BalajiFor Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Aravind.CO R D E RM.S.RAMESH , J. andSUNDER MOHAN, J.The Petitioner, mother of the detenu has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent against her son, in C3.D.O. No.34/2023 dated 06.12.2023, branding the detenu as a "Black 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 2023Marketer" contemplated under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980).2. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu, dated 12.12.2023. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation dated 12.12.2023, was received by the Government on 15.12.2023, the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary only on 12.01.2024 and thereafter by the Minister concerned on 19.01.2024 and the Rejection Letter prepared and sent on 22.01.2024. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that this inordinate delay 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 Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 20233. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.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 detenu, dated 12.12.2023, which was received by the Government on 15.12.2023, was dealt with by the Minister concerned only on 19.01.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 22.01.2024. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of twenty one days [after excluding the intervening Saturday and Sunday and Public Holidays [16.12.2023, 17.12.2023, 23.12.2023, 24.12.2023, 25.12.2023, 30.12.2023, 31.12.2023, 01.01.2024, 06.01.2024, 07.01.2024, 13.01.2024, 14.01.2024, 15.01.2024, 16.01.2024, 17.01.2024, 20.01.2024, 21.01.2024] in considering the representation of the petitioner. This inordinate delay in considering the detenu's representation remain unexplained. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 20235. 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 inordinate delay. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.6. 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."5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 2023As 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 from 16.12.2023 to 22.01.2024, 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 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. 8. In the light of the above fact and law, 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 detenu.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 20239. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order in C3.D.O.No.34/2023 dated 06.12.2023, passed by the 3rd respondent is quashed. The detenu, viz., Balaji @ Balasubramani, aged 28 years, S/o. Babu, is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 11.03.2024 bgaIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / No7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 2023To 1.The Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) Room No.270, "Krish 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. 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, Thirupathur District. 7. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.8. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 2023M.S.RAMESH , J. andSUNDER MOHAN, J.bga H.C.P.No.2496 of 202311.03.2024 9/9

H.C.P.No.2496 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 11.03.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANH.C.P.No.2496 of 2023 Deepa … Petitioner Vs.1.The Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) Room No.270, "Krish 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. District Collector & District Magistrate, Thirupathur District, Thirupathur.4. The Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur District, Thirupathur.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 20235. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.6. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID Police Station, Thirupathur District. … RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the third respondent dated 06.12.2023 in C3.D.O. No.34/2023 against the petitioner's son Balaji @ Balasubramani, Male aged 28 years, S/o. Babu, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner : Mr.D. BalajiFor Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Aravind.CO R D E RM.S.RAMESH , J. andSUNDER MOHAN, J.The Petitioner, mother of the detenu has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent against her son, in C3.D.O. No.34/2023 dated 06.12.2023, branding the detenu as a "Black 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 2023Marketer" contemplated under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980).2. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu, dated 12.12.2023. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the representation dated 12.12.2023, was received by the Government on 15.12.2023, the file has been dealt with by the Deputy Secretary only on 12.01.2024 and thereafter by the Minister concerned on 19.01.2024 and the Rejection Letter prepared and sent on 22.01.2024. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that this inordinate delay 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 Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 20233. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.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 detenu, dated 12.12.2023, which was received by the Government on 15.12.2023, was dealt with by the Minister concerned only on 19.01.2024 and the Rejection Letter was prepared on 22.01.2024. Thus, we find there is a considerable delay of twenty one days [after excluding the intervening Saturday and Sunday and Public Holidays [16.12.2023, 17.12.2023, 23.12.2023, 24.12.2023, 25.12.2023, 30.12.2023, 31.12.2023, 01.01.2024, 06.01.2024, 07.01.2024, 13.01.2024, 14.01.2024, 15.01.2024, 16.01.2024, 17.01.2024, 20.01.2024, 21.01.2024] in considering the representation of the petitioner. This inordinate delay in considering the detenu's representation remain unexplained. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 20235. 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 inordinate delay. Therefore, we have to hold that the delay has vitiated further detention of the detenu.6. 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."5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 2023As 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 from 16.12.2023 to 22.01.2024, 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 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. 8. In the light of the above fact and law, 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 detenu.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 20239. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order in C3.D.O.No.34/2023 dated 06.12.2023, passed by the 3rd respondent is quashed. The detenu, viz., Balaji @ Balasubramani, aged 28 years, S/o. Babu, is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 11.03.2024 bgaIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / No7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 2023To 1.The Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs) Room No.270, "Krish 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. 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, Thirupathur District. 7. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.8. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.2496 of 2023M.S.RAMESH , J. andSUNDER MOHAN, J.bga H.C.P.No.2496 of 202311.03.2024 9/9