(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J.) The petitioner is the detenu. He was detained under Section 3(2)(a) r/w 3(1) of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980), by order of the third respondent in Cr.M.P. No.1/2009 dated 30.08.2009, by branding him as a 'BLACK MARKETEER'.
2. There are one adverse case and one ground case as against the detenu. The details of the adverse case are as under:-
Sl. Station and Crime Number Section of Law No.
1. Virudhunagar CSCID U/s 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Crime No.56/09 Order 1982 r/w 7(1) (a)(ii) of EC Act 1955.
The ground case was registered in CSCID, Virudhunagar on 25.08.2009 under Section 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Order of 1982 r/w 7(1) a(ii) of EC Act, 1955, in Crime No.164/2009. In the ground case, the detenu was arrested on 25.08.2009 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram on 26.08.2009 and remanded to judicial custody upto 09.09.2009 and lodged in the Central Prison, Madurai. The detention order was clamped on the detenu on 30.08.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of detention passed by the third respondent is vitiated on two grounds; firstly, the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act ("Act" in short), has not been complied with by the detaining authority and secondly, even though it is stated in the detention order that they have seized raw rice, the Sub-Inspector of Civil Supplies has found that it is a boiled rice.
4. The first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of
Section 3(4) of the Act has not been complied with by the detaining authority. In this case, the detention order was passed on 30.08.2009 and it was approved on 10.09.2009 by the State Government. As per
Section 3(4) of the Act, when any order is made or approved by the State Government under this Section, the State Government shall, within seven days report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government. So, as per the relevant section, the order must accompany the particulars. In paragraph-5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the State Government had approved the detention order dated 30.08.2009 on 10.09.2009. It is also admitted in the counter that the supporting documents are yet to be received. As per the Section the documents should have been received by the Central Government within 7 days from 10.09.2009 in the present case, but till now the same has not at all been received. This clearly violates the provisions of
Section 3(4) of the Act and accordingly, the detention order is vitiated on this ground.
5. Another ground relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is that, even though it is stated in the detention order that they have seized raw rice, the Sub-Inspector, Civil Supplies Department has found that it is a boiled rice. It is true that in the detention order it is stated that they have seized raw rice, but in Page No.30 of the booklet it is stated by the Inspector, Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Virudhunagar that he received boiled rice. So, on this ground also the detention order is liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Order No.Cr.M.P.No.1/2009, dated 30.08.2009 passed by the third respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
KM To
1.The Secretary to the Government, Government of India, Food & Consumer Protection Department, Government of India, New Delhi-110 001.
2.The Secretary to the Government, Food, Co-operation and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
3.The District Magistrate & District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.