IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 27.10.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN H.C.P. No.1337 of 2010 P. Pakyaraj ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Sub-Urban Area, Chennai – 16. 3. The Secretary to Government of India, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Krishna Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of the second respondent in connection with B.,M.A. No.05/2010 dated 10.6.2010 and quash the same and to produce the body of Paulraj before this Court and set at liberty the detenu Paulraj S/o Abraham, aged about 25 years, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act 7/1980). For Petitioner : Mr. A.M. Venkatakrishnan For Respondents : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) This petition is brought forth by the cousin brother of the detenu, challenging the order of the second respondent in B.,M.A. No.05/2010 dated 10.6.2010, whereby the detenu Paulraj was ordered to be detained as "Black Marketer" under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in three adverse case viz. (i) Crime No.589 of 2009 registered by Civil Supplies CID, Chennai Unit for the offence under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955; (ii) Crime No.08 of 2010 registered by Civil Supplies CID, Thiruvallur Unit for the offence under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955; (iii) Crime No.273 of 2010 registered by Civil Supplies CID, Chennai Unit for the offence under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with 7(1) (a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 and one ground case in Crime No.395 of 2010 registered by Civil Supplies CID, Chennai for the offence under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 and Sections 403, 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 22.5.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the very day, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. While advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the arrest of the detenu was not intimated to his close relatives. It is stated by the Department as if it was informed to his brother one Selton Durairaj as found in page No.57, but no proof is filed. Apart from this, in the confession statement recorded from the detenu, as found in page No.53, it is stated that the detenu has got three sisters, but no brother. Hence it is quite clear that the arrest was not intimated to anyone of the relatives as claimed by the Department. 5. Learned counsel added further that bail application was moved before the Court of Principal Sessions District Judge, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P. No.961 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on 4.6.2010. The order under challenge was passed on 10.6.2010 i.e. within a short span of six days. But the Authority has stated in paragraph 4 of the detention order that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. When no bail application was pending before any Court of criminal jurisdiction on the date of passing of the detention order and the bail application was dismissed prior to the passing of the order, the observation of the Detaining Authority is without any material. 6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a 'Black Marketer', on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to three adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above and has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the arrest of the detenu was not intimated to his close relatives. It is stated by the Department as if it was informed to his brother one Selton Durairaj as found in page No.57, but no proof is filed. Apart from this, in the confession statement recorded from the detenu, as found in page No.53, it is stated that the detenu has got three sisters, but no brother. Hence it is quite clear that the arrest was not intimated to anyone of the relatives as claimed by the Department. 9. Added further, bail application was moved before the Court of Principal Sessions District Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P. No.961 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on 4.6.2010. The order under challenge was passed on 10.6.2010 i.e. within a short span of six days. But the Authority has stated in paragraph 4 of the detention order that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. When no bail application was pending before any Court of criminal jurisdiction on the date of passing of the detention order and the bail application was dismissed prior to the passing of the order, the observation of the Detaining Authority is without any material. It is only an expression of the impression in the mind of the Authority and only an inference and that too without any basis or materials much less cogent materials as the law would require. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in B.,M.A. No.05/2010 dated 10.6.2010. The detenu, namely, Paulraj, who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Coy/ Sub Assistant Registrar ssa. To 1. The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Sub-Urban Area, Chennai – 16. 3. The Secretary to Government of India, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Krishna Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort.St.George, Chennai-9 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104. H.C.P. No.1337 of 2010 PKB(CO) 25/11/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/