RIYAZUDIN M SAID Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 14, 19, 21, and 22 is preferred challenging the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 19th May, 2011 passed by respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Valsad, in exercise of powers conferred under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ( PBM Act for short) as being invalid, null and void and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) WHILE assailing the above order, learned advocate for the petitioner emphatically relied on the main ground that the stock of wheat was seized on 21st November, 2010 from the tempo and the statement of the petitioner was recorded immediately on the same day and the FIR was lodged on 11th March, 2011. However, the impugned detention order is passed on 19th May, 2011. Thus, there is unexplained delay of about six months in passing the impugned detention order. Mr.Thakkar has also relied upon judgment reported in the case of Smt.Shashi Agrawal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 1988 AIR(SC) 596 as well as in the case of Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat and another Vs Union of India and others, 1990 AIR(SC) 1196 and contended that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the Apex Court in these two judgments. The Authority has failed to explain the delay in serving the order of detention and therefore also, the order of detention is liable to be quashed and set aside. He relied on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B. Audi Lakshmi Vs. Government of A.P. And ors., 1984 AIR(AP) 282, wherein it was held that all the documents, together with copies of all the documents relied upon for passing the order of detention have to be furnished to the detenue, together with the order of detention. He further submitted that the set of documents does not show any date and it is shrouded with mystery as to whether the said requirement has been complied with. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajammal Vs. State of Tamilnadu, 1999 AIR(SC) 684 and it is submitted that the authority is duty bound to give a justifiable explanation when the matter involves breach of fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India and admittedly, the representation is not decided.

(3.) CONSIDERING the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred above, I deem it just and proper to quash and set aside the impugned order of detention dated 19th May, 2011 passed by the authority.