RUSHABHKUMAR KESHAVLAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, passed an order on December 16, 1999, in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the PASA Act, detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ("PBM Act" for short).

(2.) In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority observed that cotton seed and pamoline oil in large quantity was traded in by the detenu in breach of Food Adulteration Rules. The petitioner was engaged in activities which are detrimental to smooth supply of such essential commodities for his personal gain and, therefore, he is required to be detained under the PBM Act in order to immediately prevent him from pursuing his activities. The authority also observed that other less drastic remedies are not possible to be resorted and detention under PBM Act is the only efficacious remedy for the purpose.

(3.) The detenu has challenged the order of detention on various counts. Mr. Thakkar has, however, restricted his arguments to the ground of delay in forwarding the representation by the detaining authority. He has drawn attention to the affidavit in reply filed by the detaining authority, particularly paragraph 14. Mr. Thakkar submitted that, admittedly, the representation was received by the detaining authority on 3rd January, 2000 and was forwarded on 11th January, 2000, for which no explanation is tendered. The authority had then become functus officio and was required only to forward the representation and no time could have been consumed by the detaining authority in forwarding the representation. This has affected the right of the detenu of making an effective representation which would vitiate the continued detention. The petition may, therefore, be allowed.