IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 6.2.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Habeas Corpus Petition No.1689 of 2007 Vijaya Rani .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Secretary to the Government Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur. 3. The Secretary to the Government Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of India New Delhi. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. ----- For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban For Respondents1&2 : Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.P.Kumaresan, ACGSC -R3 ----- O R D E R (Made by R.REGUPATHI,J.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, Saminathan, who was detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennaii, pursuant to the order of detention dated 17.10.2007 passed under Section 3(2)(a) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ read with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, (Central Act 7 of 1980) branding him as 'Black Marketeer', has filed this writ petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention dated 17.10.2007 passed by the second respondent in Memo No.2/Black Marketing Act/2007, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. According to the detaining authority, viz., the second respondent, the ground case is said to have taken place on 14.9.2007. On receipt of credible information that the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are being violated or may be violated, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Chennai along with his police party conducted vehicle check near Pethikuppam R.T.O. Check Post. On suspicion, they stopped a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-02-R-0358, but the driver without stopping the vehicle, drove away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately the Inspector of Police along with police party chased and intercepted them. When the police party getting down from the jeep, the detenu herein and the lorry driver jumped down from the lorry and ran through the darkness. Even though they were chased, they could not be apprehended. The lorry was searched. It was found to contain 110 bags of rice meant for Public Distribution System. The lorry and the rice were recovered and a case in Civil Supplies C.I.D. Chennai Unit Crime No.445/2007 under Clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with Section 7(1) (a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Sections 403, 336, 307 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. was registered. During the course of investigation, the detenu was arrested on 15.9.2007 and sent for judicial remand. 3. The second respondent, taking note of the five adverse cases of alike nature in Crime Nos.134/2006, 236/2006, 348/2006, 86/2007 and 121 of 2007 on the file of Civil Supplies CID, Chennai and having satisfied that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities, under the Public Distribution System, passed the detention order under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, branding him as 'Black Marketeer'. Hence, the present petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of detention has been passed on 17.10.2007. In the grounds of detention, it has been specifically mentioned that the bail https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application of the detenu was dismissed, but on the contrary, it was ordered on 23.10.2007. In the representation dated 17.11.2007, this fact of release of the detenu on bail has been informed to the detaining authority. It is contended that at the time when the papers were pending before the authorities for approval of the order of detention on 25.10.2007, though the order of grant of bail was available, it was not produced before the detaining authority and therefore, it is submitted that a great prejudice has been caused to the detenu. It is further submitted that in the reply dated 7.12.2007, it has been simply rejected by assigning a wrong reason namely that the detenu was granted only anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the order of grant of bail also has been enclosed along with the reply dated 7.12.2007 and mentioning of grant of anticipatory bail is only a typographical error. In Tamil "Kd; " has been erroneously typed and under such circumstances, no prejudice would be caused. 6. We have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made by both sides. 7. The fact remains that the detenu was granted bail on 23.10.2007 even before the order of approval dated 25.10.2007 was passed. On perusal of the bail order, it appears that the order of bail was passed after hearing both the sides. Under such circumstances, the sponsoring authority is very well aware of the result of the bail application and grant of bail in favour of the detenu. In the grounds of detention, it has been specifically mentioned that the prayer for grant of bail has been declined. But, on the contrary, the detenu has been granted bail. This aspect of the proceedings was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority at the time of approval and had it been brought to the notice of the detaining authority, he would not have approved such detention order and the detenu had already been released on bail. We are, therefore, satisfied that the detaining authority had not taken note of the above fact, which shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Accordingly, the order of detention dated 17.10.2007 is vitiated and the same is set aside. The detenu Saminathan is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. ATR Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. To 1. The Secretary to the Government Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur. 3. The Secretary to the Government Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of India New Delhi. 4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Chennai. 5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. Bk (co) dv/7.3. HCP No.1689 of 2007 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/