IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 22.07.2008 Coram :- The Honourable Mr.Justice D.MURUGESAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice S. PALANIVELU H.C.P.No.487 of 2008 Tmt. Rajalakshmi .. Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3. The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Public Distribution, Government of India, New Delhi. .. Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records pertaining to the detenu Mr. Ganesan @ Pasi Ganesan, Aged 47 years Son of Jaganathan is detained under Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1980 as BLACK MARKETEER at Central Prison, Madurai, by the Second respondent vide his Order in Cr.M.P.No.1 of 2008 dated 25.03.2008 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Subadradevi For Respondents : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor [for R-1 and R-2] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr. P. Kumaresan Additional Central Government Standing Counsel [for R-3] O R D E R (ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.PALANIVELU, J) The petitioner is mother of the detenu by name Ganesan @ Pasi Ganesan. He has been branded as Black Marketeer and clamped under Detention Order dated 25.03.2008 by the second respondent. 2. He came to adverse notice of police in Cr.No.524 of 2007 with respect to the occurrence held on 5.8.2007, under clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The ground case was registered in Civil Supplies CID, Virudhunagar Cr.No.528 of 2007 under clause 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, with regard to the alleged occurrence on 8.8.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.R. Subhadra Devi would contend that a reading of the Detention Order would clearly show the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. She has pointed out a portion in paragraph 5 of the Detention Order which reads as follows: "5. I am aware that the respondent Thiru. Ganesan @ Pasi Ganesan was remanded upto 4.4.2008 and lodged in Central Prison, Madurai on 21.3.2008 in connection with Virudhunagar Civil Supplies CID Unit Cr.No.206/2008 and he had moved bail petition in Cr.M.P.No.671/08 before Judicial Magistrate No.1 (incharge) Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram on 24.03.2008 and it is pending. It is very likely that he may come out on bail by filing bail application before the same or High Court. If he comes out on bail he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public supplies of Essential Commodities to the public." When the bail application filed by the detenu before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram was pending, without properly applying his mind, the detaining authority has mentioned that he is likely to come out on bail by filing another bail application. This Court on earlier occasions, has taken consistent view that while an application for bail is pending, stating as if the detenu would come out on bail by filing another application which is very likely, is nothing but the outcome of the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. The view has been taken in more than one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occasions. In the orders passed in H.C.P.No.572 of 2006 [Jayalakshmi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another], dated 22.8.2006, H.C.P.No.207 of 2008 [Sumathi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another] dated 30.06.2008 (in which one of us constituted the Corum) and H.C.P.174 of 2008 [Smt. Bagyavathi vs. District Collector and District Magistrate Villupuram and another] (decision rendered by us), this Court the analysed identical situations and held that it is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, which would vitiate the Detention Order. 4. Considering the above, the Detention Order impugned has to be necessarily quashed. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 25.03.2008 passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ggs To 1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3. The Secretary to Government of India, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Public Distribution, Government of India, New Delhi. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 5.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public Law & Order, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-104 + 1 CC To Mr.R.Subadra Devi, Advocate SR NO.39042 H.C.P.No.487 of 2008 GV {CO} TP/5.8.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/