[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 17.01.2013, made in Cr.M.P.No.01/BM/2013[E1], quash the same, and to produce the petitioner's husband, viz., Nei Murugan @ Murugan, S/o.Annakodi, aged 35 years, who is confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

2. The detenu, namely, Nei Murugan @ Murugan, S/o.Annakodi, has been detained, under Section 3[1] r/w. 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.01/BM/2013[E1], dated 17.01.2013. In view of the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 17.01.2013, 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 17.01.2013, is liable to be set aside, merely on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation, dated 28.1.2013, made on behalf of the detenu.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the representation, dated 28.1.2013, made on behalf of the detenu, had been received by the 1st respondent, on 31.1.2013. Remarks had been called for, from the Sponsoring Authority, on 01.2.2013. However, the remarks had been received only on 14.2.2013. As such, there has been an unexplained and undue delay of 13 days in receiving the remarks, relating to the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, dated 28.1.2013. After deducting the intervening Government holidays, there has been an actual delay of 9 days in calling for the remarks, relating to the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, dated 28.1.2013. Thereafter, the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, had been rejected on 22.2.2013. Thus, there is an unexplained and undue delay between 1.2.2013 and 14.2.2013. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the actual delay of 9 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 28.1.2013. 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:-

1. The Secretary to the Govt. of Tamilnadu, 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