(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J) Challenging the order of detention, the wife of the detenu has filed the petition. The detenu was detained by the third respondent District Collector by his detention order No.17/2009 (CS), dated 12.09.2009, under Section 3(2)(a) read with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (Act 7 of 1980) terming him as a "Black Marketeer".
2. On 03.09.2009, at 23.00 hrs, 10469 Kgs ration rice in 213 bags each weighing about 50 kgs were seized by the Inspector of Police on the confession given by the detenue. Then, a case in Crime No.242 of 2009 was registered under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1) a (ii) of E.C. Act, 1955 and steps were taken to detain the detenu and the detention order was passed on 12.09.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged two grounds to show that the detention order is not valid. According to him, the detenu has not filed any bail application, so, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail without any material is not correct.
4. In paragraph 5 of the detention order, the detaining authority has observed as follows:
"The accused had filed bail petition before the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Dindigul in Cr.M.P.No.2927/09 and it was dismissed on 09.09.2009. However, there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail petition before the same or Higher Courts."
Admittedly, bail application was filed in Cr.M.P.No.2927 of 2009 and it was dismissed on 09.09.2009 and the detention order was clamped on 12.09.2009. In the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in K.Thirupathi v. District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruchirapalli District & another reported in 2005-2-L.W. 946 it is held that there should be some cogent material before the Authority passing the detention order for inferring that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and the inference must be drawn from the material on record and must not be the ipse dixit of the Authority passing the detention order. On careful consideration of the materials available on record, we are not able to find even a single material to arrive at the satisfaction about the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Hence, it vitiates the order of detention.
5. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is delay in considering the representation. In the proforma filed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is stated as follows:
3.Order of Detention Dated : 12.09.2009
4.District : Dindigul
5.Representation dated : 16.09.2009
6.Representation received on : 22.09.2009
7.Remarks called for on : 23.09.2009
8.Reminder dated : --
9.Remarks received on : 30.09.2009 (26, 27 & 28 holidays) 10.File Submitted on : 01.10.2009 11.Under Secretary dealt with : 05.10.2009 (2,3 & on 4.10.09 holidays) 12.Deputy Secretary dealt with on : 07.10.2009 13.Secretary (CF&CP) dealt with on : 08.10.2009 14.Secretary (Law) dealt with on : 08.10.2009
15.Minister for Food dealt : 12.10.2009 (10 & 11 with on holidays)
16.Rejection Letter prepared on : 12.10.2009
17.Rejection letter sent to the detenu : 14.10.2009
18.Rejection letter served to the detenu on : 15.10.2009 It is seen that the Hon'ble Minister for Food Department dealt with the representation on 12.10.2009 and the rejection letter was prepared on 12.10.2009 but the same was sent to the detenu only on 14.10.2009. Hence, there is a delay of one day in sending the rejection letter. Since, the said delay is unexplained, it vitiates the order of detention. Hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6.Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.17/2009 (CS) dated 12.09.2009, passed by the third respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
sj To
1.The Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs), Room No.270 Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
3.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
4.The Inspector of Police, CS.CID, Dindigul.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.