IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.1.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Habeas Corpus Petition No.1574 of 2007 Selvaraj .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Secretary to the Government Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli. 3. The Secretary to the Government Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of India New Delhi. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. ----- For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban For Respondents1&2 : Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.P.Kumaresan, ACGSC -R3 ----- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, Raju, who was detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, pursuant to the order of detention dated 16.10.2007 passed under Section 3(2)(a) read with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, (Act 17 of 1980) branding him as 'Black Marketeer', has filed this writ petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention dated 16.10.2007 passed by the second respondent in Ref.No.PBMMSMEC/Act/CMP.No.02/2007, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. According to the detaining authority, viz., the second respondent, the ground case is said to have taken place on 17.9.2007. On receipt of credible information that the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, are being violated or may be violated, the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Unit, Tiruchirappalli along with his police party conducted vehicle check near Ayyampalayam at Tiruchirapalli-Musiri main road, during which a lorry was intercepted and 130 bags of rice meant for Public Distribution System were found in that lorry. During interrogation, the detenu gave a voluntary statement admitting the offence, on the basis of which a case was registered in Tiruchirappalli CSCID Crime No.381/07 under Clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with Section 7(1) a (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The detenu was arrested and sent for judicial remand. 3. The second respondent, taking note of the three adverse cases of alike nature in Crime Nos.564/2006, 107/2007 and 297/1007 on the file of Tiruchirappalli CSCID and having satisfied that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities, under the Public Distribution System, passed the detention order under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, branding him as 'Black Marketeer'. Hence, the present petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inviting our attention to para 4 of the grounds of detention that, viz., "It is seen that in more than one occasion Thiru.V.Raju has been found to be involved in procuring PDS rice meant for poor public and selling the same in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ black market for pecuniary gain. Notwithstanding the police report, the Revenue Divisional Oficer, Lalgudi, was asked to conduct a detailed field enquiry and submit a report on the antecedents and activities of the detenu. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi has confirmed that the detenu has been engaged in procuring and selling of PDS rice and has also been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Commodities Essential to the community..." contends that even though the detaining authority relied upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer in the grounds of detention, he has not furnished a copy of the same in spite of the specific request of the detenu in his representation dated 25.10.2007. According to the learned counsel, in view of the non supply of the essential document viz., report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the detenu was not in a position to make an effective representation and hence the order of detention vitiates. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in POWNAMMAL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER [A.I.R. 1999 SC 618]. 5. On the above point, we heard the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 6. In POWNAMMAL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, cited supra, where the Tamil version of the remand order, which is a relied upon document, was not supplied to the detenu even though it was demanded by the detenu, the Apex Court held thus - " 15. Adverting to the facts of this case, the appellant has made a representation for supply of Tamil version of the copy of order of remand and specifically stated that the detenue could not understand English language. Admittedly, Tamil version of order of remand was not furnished to her. A perusal of the grounds shows that the order of remand was relied upon by the second respondent to reach subjective satisfaction, so the detenue need not show that any prejudice was caused to her due to non-supply of the Tamil version of order of remand. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in holding that non-furnishing of the copy of the order of remand would not in any way prejudice the detenue." 7.1. That apart, a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in H.C.P.No.1256 of 2006 (between Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Dept. and others), by order dated 5.2.2007, while considering a similar case of non-furnishing of Revenue Divisional Officer's Report as to the antecedents and activities of the detenu, held that the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is a vital document and non-supply of such document to the detenu would certainly deprive his valuable right to make an effective representation to the Government or the Advisory Board. 7.2. The above view was subsequently followed by this Court in unreported decisions in H.C.P.No.320 of 2007 (between Balaji v. State and others) by order dated 4.7.2007 and in H.C.P.No.539 of 2007 (between Kuppandi @ Kuppusami v. State and others) by order dated 16.8.2007. 8. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, as seen from para 4 of the grounds of detention, extracted above, the detaining authority had relied upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Lalgudi. But, when the detenu in his representation dated 25.10.2007 had specifically asked for a copy of the said report, the detaining authority had rejected the representation dated 25.10.2007 on the ground that the said report is a confidential report, which has deprived of the opportunity of the detenu to submit his effective representation objecting to the order of detention. Both the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also concede that the said document was not furnished to the detenu. 9. In that view of the matter, we are convinced that the detaining authority has failed to take into consideration the said non-furnishing of a vital document to the detenu, which prejudiced the detenu in making his effective representation and thus, vitiates the impugned order of detention. Hence, we are inclined to allow this writ petition on this ground. 10. In the result, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. ATR Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to the Government Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department Chennai 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tiruchirappalli District Tiruchirappalli. 3. The Secretary to the Government Food and Consumer Protection Department Government of India New Delhi. 4. The Secretary to Govt., (Public Law & Order) Dept., Fort St George, Chennai 9. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli. 6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. • 1 cc to Mr. C. Prakasam, Advocate SR No. 410 HCP No.1574 of 2007 RSV(CO) SR/21.1.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/