(Order of the Court was made by M.Jaichandren,J.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 6.11.2012, made in No.C2/27369/2012 and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Shajahan, son of Allabakshi, aged about 52 years, confined in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court, and to set him at liberty.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Shajahan, son of Allabakshi, who has been detained, under Section 3(1), read with 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings, in No.C2/27369/2012, dated 6.11.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 6.11.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Cuddalore, terming him as a 'Black Marketeer'.

3. Even though various grounds had been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed emphasis on the grounds mentioned hereunder, while stating that the impugned detention order, passed by the Detaining Authority, is bad in the eye of law. He had submitted that there was clear non-application of mind, on the part of the Detaining Authority, while passing the detention order against the detenu.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had referred to Paragraph-5 of the grounds of detention, which reads as follows:

"5. I am aware that Thiru.Shahjahan, son of Allabakshi was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Villupuram, in Civil Supplies, CID, Cuddalore Unit Crime No.275/2012 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955 and 294(b), 353 and 307 IPC and Civil Supplies, CID, Cuddalore Unit Crime No.118/2012 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act, 1955 on 14-10-2012 at about 19.00 hours and remanded to judicial custody and lodged at Central Prison, Cuddalore, till 26.10.2012 as remand prisioner. Lastly his remand was extended till 9.11.2012 on 26.10.2012. He has filed a bail petition in the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram Vide C.M.P.No.9957/2012 for the Crime No.275/2013 of CSCID, Cuddalore Unit. In a case registered against Thiru.Shajahan, son of Allabakshi at CS CID Cuddalore Unit Cr.215 of 2012 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/ 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act, 1955 he got anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.No.21665/2012 dated 12.9.2012 and Crl.M.P.No.1/2012 dated 25.9.2012. In a similar case registered at CS CID, Cuddalore Unit Cr.No.732/2011, under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS)Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act, 1955, and 294(b), 353 and 307 IPC , Thiru.Nazeer @ Nazeer Rahman, male, aged 38, Son of Ahmed, No.391, Nehruji Road, Viluppuram, Viluppuram District was released on bail by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Viluppuram in Crl.M.P.No.10391/2011 dt.21.10.2011 and hence there is a real possibility of (Thiru.Shajahan, Son of Allabakshi) coming out on bail by filing a bail application for above case before the appropriate court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities in future as well, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Thiru.Shajahan, son of Allabakshi is a Black Marketeer and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Commodities essential to the community under the provisions of 3(1) of the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act 7 of 1980)."

5. Even though the Detaining Authority had mentioned, in Paragraph-5 of the grounds of detention, that the detenu had filed a bail petition in Crime No.275 of 2012, before the Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram, vide C.M.P.No.9957 of 2012, he had not stated as to whether the said bail petition is pending disposal or that it had been already disposed of. More over, in respect of the case in Crime No.118 of 2012, the Detaining Authority had not stated as to whether any bail petition had been filed or dismissed by the court concerned. Thus, it is clear that the Detaining Authority had no proper reasons to believe that the detenu would be out on bail and that he would indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.

6. Even though the Detaining Authority had mentioned that the detenu had obtained anticipatory bail before the High Court of Madras, by an order, dated 12.9.2012, in Crl.O.P.No.21665 of 2012, and that in a similar criminal case registered at CS CID, Cuddalore Unit Crime No.732 of 2011, the accused therein, namely, Nazeer @ Nazeer Rahman, had been released on bail, by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, in Crl.M.P.No.10391 of 2011, by an order, dated 21.10.2011, all the relevant records relating to the said cases had not been furnished to the detenu. Further, the essential documents relied on by the Detaining Authority had not been furnished to the detenu. As such, the detenu had been prejudiced, as he could not make an effective representation against the impugned detention order, dated 6.11.2012.

7. Further, the Detaining Authority had not shown sufficient reason to arrive at his conclusion that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the supply of commodities essential to the community. He had further submitted that the non furnishing of the remand orders, in Crime Nos.118 and 275 of 2012, makes the impugned detention order unsustainable in the eye of law.

8. Unless the Detaining Authority is in a position to show that the similar case referred to by him in the grounds of detention is comparable with the cases relating to the detenu in all aspects, it would not be open to the Detaining Authority to arrive at this conclusion that the detenu would be enlarged on bail.

9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that there has been no proper application of mind by the Detaining Authority, before passing the impugned order of detention, dated 6.11.2012. The Detaining Authority had not mentioned clearly as to whether a bail petition had been filed on behalf of the detenu in the relevant case and as to whether the said bail petition had been disposed of. Without knowing the result of the bail petitions filed on behalf of the detenu, if any, the Detaining Authority could not have arrived at his conclusion that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the cases pending against him and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.

10. It has not been shown on behalf of the Detaining Authority that all the relevant records relating to the similar case, referred to by him in the grounds of detention had been furnished to the detenu. As such, it is clear that the detenu had not been given sufficient opportunity to make an effective representation against the impugned detention order, dated 6.11.2012. The failure of the Detaining Authority to furnish all the relevant materials had, no doubt, caused substantial prejudice to the detenu resulting in the failure on the part of the Detaining Authority in following the mandate enshrined in Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the impugned detention order, dated 6.11.2012. Accordingly, the impugned detention order, passed by the second respondent, is quashed, and the Habeas Corpus petition stands allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.

1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamilnadu Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

3. The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Department of Consumer Affairs Room No270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi I