[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 2nd respondent, dated 31.12.2012, made in Cr.M.P.No.32/BM/2012[E1], quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's son, namely, J.P. @ Jeyaprakash @ Prakash, son on Jegadesan, aged 33 years, who is confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

2. The detenu, namely, J.P. @ Jeyaprakash @ Prakash, son of Jegadesan, has been detained, under Section 3[1] read with Section 3(2)(a) 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 2nd respondent, in his proceedings, in Cr.M.P.No.32/BM/2012[E1], dated 31.12.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 31.12.2012, the detenu had been lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore.

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 2nd respondent, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent, on 31.12.2012, is liable to be set aside, merely on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation, dated 23.1.2013, made on behalf of the detenu.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the representation, dated 23.1.2013, made on behalf of the detenu, had been received by the 1st respondent, on 29.1.2013. Remarks had been called for, from the Sponsoring Authority, on 30.1.2013. However, the remarks had been received only on 18.2.2012. As such, there has been an unexplained and undue delay of 19 days in receiving the remarks, relating to the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, dated 23.1.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, i.e. 2.2.2013, 3.2.2013, 9.2.2013, 10.2.2013, 16.2.2013 and 17.2.2013, there has been an actual delay of 13 days in calling for the remarks, relating to the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, dated 23.1.2013. It is also noted that after receiving the remarks, on 18.2.2013, the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, had been rejected only on 27.2.2013, and it had been served on the detenu only on 4.3.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, i.e. 23.2.2013 and 24.2.2013, there is an actual delay of seven days in passing the orders on the representation of the detenu. Accordingly, there is an unexplained and undue delay, between 30.1.2013 and 18.2.2013 and also between 18.2.2013 and 27.2.2013. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the actual delay of 20 days 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 23.1.2013. 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 23.1.2013, 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 second respondent, dated 31.12.2012, 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 Secretary to the Govt., Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Dept., Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Coimbatore Dist.

3.The Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras