1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.5 of 2011 Uma Devi ... 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-110 001. 2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 4.The Inspector of Police, C.S.CID., Virudhunagar ... Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Cr.M.P.No.08/2010 (Black Marketeer), dated 28.12.2010 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu, namely, J.P.@Jeya Prakash, S/o.Shenbagamoorthy, aged about 32 years, who is confined in Central Prison, Madurai. For Petitioner .. Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents .. Mr.N.Senthur Pandian Additional Public Prosecutor for R2 to R4 (*) Mr.A.Uthaman C.G.C for R1 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH,J) Challenging the order of detention clamped on the detenu by name J.P.@Jeya Prakash by the third respondent in Cr.M.P.No.08/2010 (Black Marketeer), dated 28.12.2010, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed. 2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to Paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention submitted that the detaining authority has not applied his mind while arriving at subjective satisfaction by considering the real possibility of coming out on bail by the detenu. Therefore, the order is liable to be quashed for non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 3.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.We have perused the materials available on record and carefully considered the submissions made on either side. 5.The detaining authority, while formulating the grounds of detention though stated that the detenu has not filed any bail application in this case, he failed to mention the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application. The grounds of detention having not been formulated in the manner known to law, we are of the view that the subjective satisfaction has not been arrived at properly and the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 6.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the third respondent in Cr.M.P.No.08/2010 (Black Marketeer), dated 28.12.2010 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) (*) Corrected as per letter dated 29.4.11 Address to the Registrar (Judicial) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To: To be substituted for the orders already despatched on 17.3.2011:- 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-110 001. 2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 4.The Inspector of Police, C.S.CID., Virudhunagar. 5.The Superntendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 6.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 7.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Advocate, SR No.10867 + 1 cc to Mr.A.Uthaman, Advocate, SR No.10820 Order in HCP (MD) No.5/2011 Dated:02.03.2011 sms/RJ/16.3.11/(2p/10c) RJ/1.7.11/(2p/10c) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/