TILAKLAL CHANANMAL SAHANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to delete respondent No. 4 and leave to add respondent No. 4 as Union of India is granted. Ms. P.J. Davawala, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 4.

(2.) By means of filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/detenue who has been detained by the District Magistrate, Surat, vide order dated December 24, 1999 in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ('PBM Act' for short hereinafter), has challenged the said order and prayed to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring Sec. 3 of the PBM Act as unconstitutional, Central Government has no jurisdiction, competence, authority or power to provide for and prescribe the parameters governing the quality of essential commodity while exercising the powers under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) and also declaring the Motor Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Mai Practices) Order, 1998 is beyond the scope and purview of Sec. 3 of the Act and also to quash and set aside the order impugned and setting the petitioner at liberty forthwith.

(3.) At the outset Mr. Nirupam Nanavaty, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the substantive reliefs prayed in Sub-paragraphs A, B, C of Para 61 of the petition. The petitioner confines only to the relief prayed in Clause D of Para 61 of the petition.