1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE.V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH H.C.P.(MD)No.626 of 2011 Nagarani : 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-600 009. 3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 4.The Inspector of Police, CS,CID, Dindigul. : Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Detention order No.04/2011 (CS) dated 21.07.2011 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu, namely, Dharmar, son of Karuppaiah Thevar, aged about 36 years, who is confined in Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar for M/s.D.Venkatesh For R.1 : Mr.A.B.Nagarajan Senior Standing Counsel for Government of India For R.2 to 4 : Mr.Muthu Karuppan Addl.Public Prosecutor ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J.] This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the order of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 detention passed by the third respondent in his proceedings, in Detention order No.04/2011 (CS), dated 21.07.2011, and quash the same and produce the detenu, namely, Dharmar, son of Karuppaiah Thevar, aged about 36 years, who is confined in Central Prison, Madurai, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. It had been stated that, on 21.07.2011, the third respondent had detained the husband of the petitioner, under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, by his detention order, dated 21.07.2011. 3. It is noted that various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in challenging the order of detention passed by the third respondent. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order of detention passed by the third respondent, on 21.07.2011, is liable to be set aside merely on the main ground of delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.07.2011. He had pointed out that the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.07.2011, had been dealt with by the Secretary (Law), on 11.08.2011. However, the Minister for Food had dealt with the said representation, only on 29.08.2011. Hence, there has been a delay of 18 days in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.07.2011. Admittedly, out of the 18 days, six days were holidays and therefore, there has been an actual delay of 12 days in disposing of the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.07.2011. 4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision of this Court, in Sumaiya Vs The Secretary to Government, reported in 2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145, (DB), to state that even three days' delay in considering the representation is fatal to the detention order passed. He had further submitted that the unexplained delay caused in considering the representation would vitiate the detention order passed by the third respondent. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4, had not been in a position to explain the delay caused in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner, dated 22.07.2011. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision cited supra, we are constrained to quash the order of detention passed by the third respondent, in Detention order No.04/2011 (CS), dated 21.07.2011. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus petition stands allowed. Consequently, the detenu is directed to be released, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. ssm Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Records] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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-110 001. 2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 4.The Inspector of Police, CS,CID, Dindigul. 5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 6. The Joint Secretary to Government Public[L & O] Fort saint George, Chennai-9. 7. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Order made in H.C.P.(MD)No.626 of 2011 Dated:- 20.10.2011 3P/8C RPB : 09.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/