AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—This petition challenges an order of the third respondent made in No. 01/2009(CS) dated 14.2.2009 whereby the husband of the petitioner herein by name Selvam, was detained under the provisions of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 branding him as a black marketer.
The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into the affidavit in support of the petition along with the grounds of attack. The order under challenge is also perused.
It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu Selvam is involved in two adverse cases namely (i) CS CID Uthamapalayam Cr. No. 665/2008 u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act 1955 and (ii) CS CID Uthamapalayam Cr. No. 11/2009 u/s 6(4) of TNSC (DDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955, and one ground case in Crime No. 20/2009 which was registered by CS CID, Uthamapalayam, on 4.2.2009 when he was found in possession of 26 bags of PDS Rice, the detaining authority after looking into all the materials available, took the view that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public distribution system, and he has been acting for his personal enrichment, and hence it was violative of the provisions of the Act and made the order of detention which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner inter alia raised only one ground which, according to him, would suffice to set aside the order. According to him, there was an undue and inordinate delay in consideration of the representation made by the detenu. The representation was received by the authority on 25.2.2009, and the remarks were called for on 26.2.2009. The remarks were received by the detaining authority only on 18.3.2009, and there was a delay of 23 days which remained unexplained.
The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.
The Court has to necessarily agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the case on hand, as referred to above, the detenu Selvam was detained under the provisions of the Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, describing him as a black marketer. From the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the proforma supplied by the State, it would be quite evident that the representation was received on 25.2.2009. The remarks were called for on 26.2.2009, and they were received from the sponsoring authority only on 18.3.2009. Thus there was a delay of 23 days. Out of this 23 days, according to the State, there were six declared holidays. Except this, there were 17 days. This long period, in the considered opinion of the Court, is undue and unreasonable. No explanation is coming from the State at all. This has caused much prejudice to the interest of the detenu. Under the circumstances, the impugned order has got to be set aside.
Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the third respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.