RAJUBHAI MANGILAL TELI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri R.J.Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents. Shri Dave has informed that the concerned officer is also present with him and he has obtained instructions during the course of arguments as they have advanced.

(2.) Pursuant to our order dated 15.10.2020 the appellants have surrendered on 16.10.2020 and are presently detained at the Sabrmati Central Prison. The detention order thus has been executed upon the appellants and now the matters have been heard on merits with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties pursuant to our previous order dated 06.11.2020.

(3.) Mr. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellants has mainly raised three arguments. First that there was a solitary case registered against the appellants under the provisions of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as also certain offences of cheating and fraud under the Indian Penal Code in the month of March, 2020. The appellants had applied for anticipatory bail as also regular bail, which had been duly granted to them. He thus submits that only on solitary case the detention order is bad in law. The next argument advanced by Shri Goswami is to the effect that the relevant material was not provided to the appellants along with the detention orders, which includes the order of anticipatory bail, order of regular bail, remand application and the order passed on the remand application, which vitiates the procedure followed by the detaining authority and as such also the detention orders cannot be sustained. The next argument advanced is that the orders of detention were passed on 26.07.2020 whereas the first information report was lodged on 12.03.2020. In case the sponsoring authority was of the view that the appellants were liable to be detained under The Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, then the action ought to have been taken promptly and this delay of more than four months indicates that the orders of detention are not bonafide orders, but are based on extraneous considerations. On all the grounds above, Shri Goswami submits that the detention orders cannot be sustained and as such deserve to be quashed and the appellants be set at liberty forthwith.