HARISHCHANDRASINH AJITSINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/detenue who has been detained by the District Magistrate, Surendranagar, vide order dated May 29, 2000 (Annexure-A to the petition) in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ('the PBM Act' for short hereinafter), has challenged the said order and prayed to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order of detention and set him at liberty forthwith.

(2.) The averments made in the petition and the grounds of detention manifest that the petitioner is a partner of Mandavraoji Petrol Pump at Muli, District Surendranagar. The Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar intercepted two tankers on April 28, 2000 near Vakaner and it was found that stock of solvent was transported for the purpose of mixing it .with petrol and during inquiry, it was further revealed that at petitioner's petrol pump also solvent was sent through tanker which was mixed by the petitioner with the petrol and, therefore, sample was collected and sent for the purpose of chemical analyzer to the oil company. The report of said sample does not contain requisite standard and, therefore, the detaining authority thought that the petitioner was selling adulterated petrol from his petrol pump and the petitioner is dealing in the supply of essential commodities like petroleum solvent and carrying the activities in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodities essential to the community and public at large and therefore, the authority found it necessary to detain the petitioner on the grounds stated in the impugned order.

(3.) Though the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on various grounds, Mr. H.R.Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner has restricted his arguments to the effect that non- supply of the legible copies of the documents referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority while recording the order of detention has seriously prejudiced the right of the petitioner in making an effective representation to the concerned authority The infirmity in this regard is violative of the constitutional safeguard as enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. He, therefore, urged that on this count alone, the petition deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting the order of detention and setting the petitioner at liberty forthwith.