1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD).No.589 of 2011 Krishnasamy : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001. 2.The Secretary to Government, Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai 09. 3.The District Magistrate & District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.03 of 2011 (Black Marketer), dated 30.06.2011 and quash the same as illegal and produce the detenu namely K.Kaliraj, S/o.Krishnasamy aged about 25 years, who is confined in Central Prison, Madurai and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh for Mr.T.Muruganantham For Respondent 1 : Mr.N.R.V.Jawaharlal Central Govt.Counsel For Respondents 2&3 : Mr.T.Mohan Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J] The petitioner is the father of one K.Kaliraj, who has been detained under Section 3(2)(a) r/w of the Prevention of Black – Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, (Central Act No.7 of 1980) by the third respondent herein by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.03 of 2011, dated 30.06.2011. Challenging the said order, as unconstitutional and to set the detenu at liberty, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. Though this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed raising several grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly focus on the ground that all the necessary materials available against the detenu were not placed before the Detaining Authority and that the Detaining Authority, in turn, did not apply his mind into the relevant materials. It is further contended that all the materials, which were relied on by the Detaining Authority before passing the impugned order, were not supplied to the detenu, because of which, the detenu has been seriously prejudiced in making his effective representation and to defend himself. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that according to the Detention Order, in the Grounds Case, the petitioner filed an application for bail in Cr.M.P.3987 of 2011, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Virudhunagar and by order dated 29.06.2011, the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Virudhunagar, granted bail. But, the Bail Order was not produced before the Detaining Authority and without having any material, the Detaining Authority has stated that the since detenu had an order of bail and if he was set at liberty, he would indulge in such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities to the public. The learned counsel would also point out that since the bail order granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Virudhunagar, was neither produced before the Detaining Authority nor a copy of the same was furnished to the detenu, the detenu has been seriously prejudiced, and thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ranu Bhandari reported in 2009 (1) MLJ (Crl) 54, wherein in Paragraph No.25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "25. We have indicated hereinbefore that the consistent view expressed by this Court in matters relating to preventive detention is that while issuing an order of detention, the detaining authority must be provided with all the materials available against the individual concerned, both against him and in his favour, to enable it to reach a just conclusion that the detention of such individual is necessary in the interest of the State and the general public. It has also been the consistent view that when a detention order is passed all the material relied upon by the detaining authority in making such an order, must be supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation against the detention order in compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution, irrespective of whether he had knowledge of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the same or not. These have been recognised by this Court as the minimum safeguards to ensure that preventive detention laws, which are an evil necessity, do not become instruments of oppression in the hands of the authorities concerned or to avoid criminal proceedings which would entail a proper investigation." 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is not in a position to dispute the above factual aspects. 5. We have considered the above submissions. The records produced before this Court would go to show that the order of bail granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar, was not placed before the Detaining Authority and a copy of the same was not furnished to the detenu. In the Judgment, cited supra, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that irrespective of the fact whether the detenue had knowledge of the said order or not, the same should have been furnished to the detenu so as to enable him to make an effective representation, if the same had been considered by the Detaining Authority before passing the impugned order of detention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the said material [bail order] should have been produced before the Detaining Authority. Here, in this case, the said bail order was neither produced before the Detaining Authority nor a copy of the same was furnished to the detenu. The Detaining Authority, even without having a copy of the bail order before him, had simply gone by some statements made by the Sponsoring Authority that the bail had been granted in favour of the detenu and has passed the Detention Order. This shows the total non – application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. In our considered view, by this, the detenu has been seriously prejudiced. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment, cited supra, for the defects, which we have noticed above, the impugned Detention Order is liable to be quashed. 6. Since we are inclined to quash the impugned Detention Order on the above ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the other grounds raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition need not be gone into by this Court. Accordingly, we do not venture to go into the other grounds raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition. 7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.03 of 2011, dated 30.06.2011 is quashed. The detenu, by name, K.Kaliraj, S/o.Krishnasamy, is ordered to be set at liberty, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001. 2.The Secretary to Government, Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai 09. 3.The District Magistrate & District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai 5.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai - 9 6.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +2cc to Mr.N.R.V.Jawaharlal, Advocate, Sr.No.40058, 40106 nb ssk/24.11.2011 /9c -4p/- ORDER MADE IN HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD).No.589 of 2011 15.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/