BANNALAL VAHILDA CHAVLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging in this petition the order of detention passed against him by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

(2.) The facts leading to the passing of the detention order, briefly stated, are as follows:On 4-7-1998, the Officers of the Food and Civil Supplies Controller's Office raided the sugar candy factory of the petitioner. He was found in possession of 1140 litres of white colour kerosene and 515 litres of blue coloured kerosene. The white colour kerosene was suspected to be blue coloured kerosene later on turned into white. The officers suspected that the entire quantity of kerosene was a part of the blue coloured kerosene meant for distribution amongst weaker section of the society at subsidised rates through the Public Distribution System. Analysis of samples of that kerosene done by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmedabad confirmed their suspicion. As the petitioner was thus found to have unauthorisedly obtained, stored and consumed blue coloured kerosene meant for weaker section of the society for his business purpose and as the entire quantity of kerosene was purchased from M/s. Purvi Petroleum under bills showing sale of white kerosene and as M/s. Purvi Petroleum was earlier also found to be indulging in black marketing of blue kerosene, a proposal was made by the Food and Civil Supplies Controller to the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad for taking necessary action against the petitioner. The District Magistrate, on consideration of the materials placed before him, was satisfied that the petitioner was in collusion with M/s. Purvi Petroleum which was indulging in black marketing of blue coloured kerosene and that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of essential commodity like kerosene, it was necessary to preventively detain him, and, therefore, passed an order for detention of the petitioner on 9-10-1998. The petitioner was actually detained on 8-1-1999 pursuant to the said order of detention.

(3.) Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is no restriction with respect to possession of white colour kerosene and yet in the grounds of detention it is stated that "for storage or consumption of the white coloured kerosene, you are not having any permit or licence/parvenu either in your name or in the name of the firm." He submitted that this statement in the grounds of detention shows non-application of mind and a casual approach by the District Magistrate while passing the order of detention. During the hearing of this petition Mr. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for the District Magistrate, stated that really there is no restriction regarding possession, storage and use of white kerosene by consumers. But he submitted that the white colour kerosene which was found from the petitioner's possession was really blue coloured kerosene turned into white and it was in that context the District Magistrate stated in the grounds of detention that in respect of the said quantity of white kerosene the petitioner did not have any licence or permit. What is submitted by Mr. Dholakia appears to be correct and, therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Dave in this behalf deserves to be rejected.