AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 30.6.2010, whereby the son of
the petitioner by name Mari was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies
of Essential Commodities Act 1980, branding him as a Black Marketeer.
The Court heard the learned Counsel fort he petitioner and also looked into all the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge
along with the grounds of detention.
It is not in controversy that the sponsoring authority has made a recommendation that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases namely (1)
Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit Crime No. 303/2010 u/s 6(4) of TNSC Rules (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential
Commodities Act 1955 and (2) Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit Crime No. 309/2010 u/s 6(4) of TNSC Rules (RDCS) Order 1982 read with
7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and also in a ground case registered by Civil Supplies, CID, Chennai Unit, in Crime No. 309/2010
u/s 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(i)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Sections 403, 353 and 307 IPC for an
occurrence that took place on 29.5.2010 when he was found in possession of 30 bags of PDS rice each containing 50 Kgs., and on scrutiny of the
entire materials, the second respondent after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of
supplies of commodities essential to the community, was of the opinion that an order of detention has got to be passed and accordingly, made the
order which is the subject matter of challenge.
Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that when the detenu was arrested on 29.5.2010, in
connection with the second adverse case and the ground case, he did not move for any bail application in the second adverse case; that though he
moved a bail application before the Principal Sessions Division in respect of the ground case in Crl.M.P. 4852/2010, the same was dismissed, and
thereafter he moved a bail petition in Crl.O.P. No. 12897/2010 before this Court, and the same was also dismissed; and that both the dates of
dismissal are not mentioned in the order.
Added further the learned Counsel that the order of remand was actually made in the second adverse case till 25.6.2010 as mentioned in the
order; but the order under challenge came to be passed on 30.6.2010, and thus the detaining authority did not know whether the remand was
extended from 25.6.2010 or not, but the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail which would indicate
that the authority could not have arrived at the subjective satisfaction proper before recording so, and hence the order has got to be set aside.
The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the learned Counsel for the third respondent on all the above contentions
and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
As could be seen above, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu was indulging in such kind of activities which impelled him to record
that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, and on scrutiny of the
materials made the order under challenge. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a bail application was actually moved in
the ground case in Crl.M.P. No. 4852/2010 before the Principal Sessions Division, Chennai, and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, an
application was moved before this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 12897/2010 and the same was also dismissed, as could be seen from the available
materials, on 25.6.2010. The impugned order came to be passed on 30.6.2010. It is pertinent to point out that when the order came to be passed,
no bail application was filed in the second adverse case. The application which was originally filed before the Court of Session and the subsequent
petition before the High Court in respect of the ground case, were dismissed. But the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of his
coming out on bail. It cannot but be without any basis or foundation or material, much less cogent material.
Apart from the above, it is an admitted position that insofar as the ground case, the remand was extended till 25.6.2010, and thereafter it is not
known whether the remand was extended further or not. Even a reading of the grounds of detention would reflect that the remand was extended till
25.6.2010. The order under challenge came to be passed on 30.6.2010. If to be so, the authority who made the order, did not know whether the
remand extension was made from 25.6.2010 onwards or not. In such circumstances, it would be quite clear that all the materials were not placed
before the authority or the authority could not have arrived at the subjective satisfaction proper. On both the above grounds, the order has got to
be set aside.
In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty
forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.