P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, namely J.Ganesan @ Pasi Ganesan, S/o.Jeganathan, aged about 55 years. Based on a case registered in Crime No.145 of 2015, on the file of the fourth respondent, which is referred to as the ground case, the third respondent has passed an order of detention for the detention of J.Ganesan @ Pasi Ganesan, S/o.Jeganathan, holding him to be a "Black Marketeer" as defined under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [Act No.7 of 1980], in his proceedings in P.D.No.39/2015, dated 06.10.2015.
(2.) The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that the detenu conformed to the definition of the Black Marketeer and that his presence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and also expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that the detenu would come out on bail in the criminal case, passed the impugned detention order. The said order is challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
(3.) Though the order of detention has been assailed on several grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the contention that the representation made on behalf of the detenu by the petitioner for revocation of the order of detention was not considered within a reasonable time and such enormous delay in considering the representation amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity vitiating the order of detention. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of the Court to raise an additional ground, which is as follows: - "After the detention order is approved by the State Government, the Detaining Authority, which is other than the State Government, becomes functus officio and the rejection of the representation made by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu should have been made only by the State Government and not by the Detaining Authority. The representation made by the petitioner, dated 15.10.2015, came to be rejected not by the State Government, but by the Detaining Authority, on 30.10.2015, nearly two weeks after the Government approved the order of detention. On that ground also, the order of detention stands vitiated". ;