DWARIKA PRASAD SAHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is with reluctance, we might almost say regretfully, that we allow this petition directed against the validity of an order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Ranchi under Section 3 (2) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 1971. If only the District Magistrate had applied his mind properly and carefully and acted with a greater sense of responsibility, the infirmity vitiating the order of detention could have been easily avoided. We are painfully conscious of the fact that economic offenders are a menace to the community , and it is necessary in the interest of the economic well-being of the society to mercilessly stamp out such pernicious, anti-social and highly reprehensible activities as hoarding black-marketing and profiteering which are causing havoc to the economy of the country and inflicting untold hardships on the common man and to carry on a relentless war against such economic offenders with a view to putting them out of action. But in the present case, the attempt to curb this social menace has been frustrated and set at naught by want of due care and application on the part of the District Magistrate. We hope and trust that, in future, in view of the social objectives intended to be achieved by the use of the Act against economic offenders. the District Magistrates will show greater care and attention in exercising the vast powers conferred upon them under the Act, both in the interest of personal liberty which is one of our cherished freedoms as also in the interest of firm and effective action against those who are undermining the foundations of our social and economic structure.

(2.) The petitioner is a dealer in high speed diesel oil holding a licence under the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966. It appears that certain complaints were received against the petitioner from local truck owners that he was not supplying high speed diesel oil to them according to their requirements and even when he supplied a little, he made it a condition that they should also buy from him other commodities, such as grease, brake oil, filter oil etc.. but so far as outside truck owners are concerned, he supplied them as much quantity of high speed diesel oil as they liked at prices higher than the controlled. price. The third respondent. who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, thereupon sent respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to the petrol pump of the petitioner with a view to checking the accounts and verifying the stock of high speed diesel oil with the petitioner. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 found on physical verification that there was a total stock of 1957 (sic) litres in the two tanks of the petitioner as against a balance of 1597 (sic) litres appearing in the books of account, with the result that there was an excess stock of 350 {sic) litres. The District Magistrate thereafter, on the materials placed before him, made the order of detention impugned in the present petition.

(3.) The order of detention was based on the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it was necessary to detain the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested and at the time of his arrest he was served with the grounds on which the order of detention was made. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner set out six grounds which were in the following terms: