[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Jaichandren, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent, dated 14.12.2012, made in C.M.P.No.68/ Black marketer/Salem City/2012, quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's husband, viz.,Karthik, S/o.Balakrishnan, aged 30 years, who is confined in the Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

2. The detenu, namely, Karthik, S/o.Balakrishnan, has been detained, under Section 3[1] r/w. Section 3(2)(b) of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980), pursuant to the order passed by the first respondent, in his proceedings C.M.P.No.68/Black marketer/Salem City/2012, dated 14.12.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the first respondent, dated 14.12.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Salem.

3. Even though various grounds had been raised by the petitioner, in the present Habeas Corpus petition, while challenging the order of detention, passed by the first respondent, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order of detention passed by the first respondent, on 14.12.2012, is liable to be set aside, merely on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation, dated 14.12.2012, made on behalf of the detenu.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the representation, dated 14.12.2012, made on behalf of the detenu, had been received by the detaining authority, on 17.12.2012, and the said representation was received by the Section concerned, on 21.12.2012. Remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority, on 24.12.2012. The Sponsoring Authority had furnished the remarks, on 26.12.2012, and the remarks were sent to the Government on 27.12.2012, Thereafter, the Government, by its order dated 7.1.2013, had rejected the representation of the detenu. Thus, there is an unexplained delay between 27.12.2012 and 7.1.2013. Though the remarks have been sent to the Government by the detaining authority, on 27.12.2012, the representation of the detenu was rejected by the Government only on 7.1.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, i.e. 29.12.2012, 30.12.2012 and 1.1.2013, there has been an actual delay of eight days in passing the order on the representation made on behalf of the petitioner, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, would vitiate the detention order passed by the detaining authority.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that there is no delay in considering the representation of the detenu, dated 14.12.2012. He had further submitted that the representation made on behalf of the detenu, had been disposed of, in an expeditious manner. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in D.M.Nagaraja Vs. Government of Karnataka and others , reported in (2011) 10 SCC 215, to state that there is no obligation on the part of the Detaining Authority or the State Government to dispose of the representation made on behalf of the petitioner, before the order of detention is approved.

6. In a number of decisions, the Apex Court, as well as the various High Courts, have made it clear that the delay in disposing of the representation would vitiate the order of detention. Some of them are as follows:-

...the right to representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India includes right to expeditious disposal not only by the State Government under the relevant provision of the Statute, but also by the Central Government. But in each case it is one of fact to be ascertained whether the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, has caused delay due to negligence, callous inaction, avoidable re-tapism and undue protraction by the authorities concerned. Expedition is the rule and delay defeats mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

20. In Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. union of India and others, reported in 1989 SCC (Crl) 554, the Supreme Court has held that an avoidable and unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation would result in rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and constitutionally impermissible.

21. In Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Others , 1980 ( 2) SCC 321 and Raghavendra Singh v. Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur & Others , (1986) 1 SCC 650, the Apex Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government, in considering the representation, renders the detention illegal.

22. In Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others , 1999 (1) SCC 417, it has been held as follows:-

23. In K.M.Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India , (1991) 1 SCC 476, it has been held as follows:-

24. In a recent decision, in Ummu Sabeena Vs. State of Kerala , 2011 STPL (Web) 999 SC, the Supreme Court has held that the history of personal liberty, as is well known, is a history of insistence on procedural safeguards. The expression 'as soon as may be', in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, clearly shows the concern of the makers of the Constitution that the representation, made on behalf of the detenu, should be considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency and without any avoidable delay.

25. In the present case, the delay caused in the disposal of the representation, dated 14.12.2012, made on behalf of the detenu, has not been properly explained by the respondents.

26. In such circumstances, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, dated 14.12.2012, is set aside and this Habeas Corpus petition is allowed. Consequently, 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 Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem.

2. Govt. Of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Co-operation, Food and Consumer protection Dept., Secretariat Chennai-9.

3. The Additional Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept., New Delhi-1.

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras