1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P.(MD)No.278 of 2011 Madheena Begam ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Consumer affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of consumer affairs) Room No.270 Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110001. 2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Cooperation, Food and consumer protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9. 3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, CS.CID, Madurai. ... Respondents PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, call for the entire records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in C.M.P.No.03/211 (CS) dated 21.03.2011 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu, namely, Shahul Hameed son of Sulaiman, aged about 49 years, who is confined in Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Jothi,APP ORDER (Order of this Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Shahul Hameed aged 49 years son of Sulaiman. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the 2nd respondent in C.M.P.No.03/211 (CS) dated 21.03.2011 branding the detenu as a “Black Marketeer" under the provisions of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980). 2. Advancing the arguments assailing the order of the detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that there are unexplained delay of 37 days at two stages in considering the representation of the detenu and therefore, the detention order is vitiated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 4. It is seen from the Proforma produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before this Court that the first representation of the detenu was received on 23.03.2011, remarks were called for on 29.03.2011 but remarks were received only on 24.05.2011. Thus, there was a delay of 55 days, out of which, 18 days happened to be holidays and in effect, there was a delay of 37 days in considering the representation, which remains unexplained. 5. Such unexplained delay in considering the representation would amount to deprivation of making effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the detention order in C.M.P.No.03/211 (CS) dated 21.03.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Consumer affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of consumer affairs) Room No.270 Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110001. 2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Cooperation, Food and consumer protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9. 3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 5.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St.George, Chennai-9 6.The Inspector of Police, CS.CID, Madurai. 7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. nbj H.C.P.(MD)No.278 of 2011 24.06.2011 TR : 04.07.2011 : 2p/8c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/