NANDLAL NANALAL TAILI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner came to be detained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short "PBM Act"), by virtue of order passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, on 6th February, 2010, in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the said Act. The detaining authority found that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and may result in black marketing of such commodities and, therefore, he is required to be immediately prevented from pursuing his activities by starting business in the name of his relative or associates. The detaining authority has further observed that if a complaint is lodged under Section 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, he may get himself released on bail or may obtain an injunction order and may continue his activities and, therefore, detention is the only effective remedy that can be resorted to. Ultimately, the order of detention was passed.

(2.) The said order is sought to be challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on various grounds. However, learned Advocate Ms. Shah, appearing for the petitioner, has restricted her arguments to the ground that the detaining authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction on extraneous material in absence of any cogent or concrete material to support such a conclusion. She has contended that from the order of detention that it is not possible to initiate any criminal proceedings against the detenu under the provision of Essential Commodities Act as he does not hold a valid license and one FIR CR No. II 11/2010 is registered on 2.2.2010 at Kapodara GIDC Taluka Palsana District Surat and the investigation is going on and it is likely to consume time to take steps by the Court and, therefore, the order of detention is vitiated by vice of non-application of mind. She has contended that the incident has taken place on 10.10.2009 and the order of detention is passed on 6.2.2010 and, therefore, there is delay of about 4 months in passing the order of detention and no explanation whatsoever has been given or explained and, therefore, also the order of detention is vitiated by delay and latches. She has also contended that the report of F.S.L. Has not been been supplied to the petitioner which clearly violates the right of the petitioner under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The continued detention of detenu is therefore, vitiated. He may, therefore, be ordered to be enlarged from the detention.

(3.) Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 are represented by learned A.G.P. Ghe has filed affidavits of Detaining Authority. Respondent No. 4- Union of India is represented by Mr. Shaikh, learned Standing Counsel.