IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 12/06/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.DHANAPALAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.471 of 2006
Sivagami ... Petitioner
-VS-
1. The Secretary
to the Government,
Food, Co-operation and
Consumer Protection Department,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Salem, Salem District.
3. The Secretary to the Government,
Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Government of India, New Delhi. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a
writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records in connection with the
order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 26.12.2005, in
C.M.P. No.3/P.B.M.S.E.C.Act/J3/2005, against the petitioner's husband Durai @
Durai samy, son of Chinnasamy, aged about 39 years, who is confined at Central
Prison, Salem, set aside the same, direct the respondents to produce the
detenu before the Court and set him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.Parthiban
^For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran,
Addl. Public Prosecutor.
For R-3 : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Addl. Central
Govt. Standing Counsel.
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated
26.12.2005, detaining her husband by name Durai @ Duraisamy under the
Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential
Commodities Act, 1980.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for R-1 and R-2 and the learned Additional Central
Government Standing Counsel for R-3.
3. It is not in dispute that the very same petitioner, by filing HCP
No.165 of 2006, challenged the same impugned proceedings dated 26 .12 .2005.
It is also not in dispute that, by order dated 21.03.2006, after considering
the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
the respondents, this Court, holding that there is no merit in the said
contentions, dismissed HCP No.165 of 20 06. After dismissal of the said
petition, now, the very same petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus
Petition, praying for quashing of the very same detention order.
4. Mr.V.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
mainly contended that the representation, dated 3.4.2006, sent on behalf of
the detenu to the Central Government, has not been considered and that no
intimation was sent to the petitioner regarding the fate of the said
representation. Though learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised
an objection regarding maintainability of the above petition in view of the
dismissal of the earlier petition, ie., HCP No.165 of 2006, order dated
21.3.2006, we are inclined to consider the argument of the learned counsel for
the petitioner. It is the specific stand of the learned Additional Central
Government Standing Counsel, appearing for R-3, that no such representation,
dated 03.04.2006, was received by the third respondent. In view of the
categorical statement made by the Counsel for R-3, we have no other option
except to accept the same.
5. It is our duty to mention that while disposing of the earlier
petition, ie., HCP No.165 of 2006, this Court considered all the rival
contentions and after perusing the relevant materials, dismissed the said
petition. In view of the information furnished by the third respondent, even
the only contention raised in this petition is liable to be rejected.
Consequently, Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
JI.
To
1. The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Salem.
3. The Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection
Dept., Government of India, New Delhi.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
5. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.