BHAILALBHAI SHAMALBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

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, Gandhinagar, on 10th May, 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, appearing for the petitioner, has restricted his 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. He has contended that there is no material to show that the detenu has committed the act, as contemplated under explanation of Section 3(1) of the Act, with a view to make a gain in any manner. He has contended that the Authority has already registered FIR being CR No.II 3064 of 2010 on 10.3.2010 against the detenu with Naroda Police Station for the offences under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The detenu was arrested on the same and the detenu has not preferred any bail application and, therefore, the detaining Authority has no material to nurse any such apprehension that after release on bail the detenu would continu similar activities. It is contended that there was no material before the detaining Authority to reach to a conclusion that despite the filing of prosecution, the petitioner is likely to continue the similar kind of activities and, therefore, the detaining authority had no material to nurse any such apprehension that despite the filing of prosecution the detenu would continue similar activities. Learned Advocate has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHASHI AGRAWAL v/s. STATE OF U.P., reported in 1988 SC 596.

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