NARENDRAKUMAR PRANLAL GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitioner are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus or a writ or order of the like nature complaining that the petitioner in each of these two petitions was unlawfully detained by the State of Gujarat pursuant to the identically worded orders both dated 29/06/1981 Annexure A to each of these two petitions the detention having been ordered in the purported exercise or the powers conferred on the Government by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Main- tenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (No. 7 of 1980) (the Act for short). The petitioners in both these petitions allege that their detention is otherwise than in accordance with law and they therefore pray that they should be set at liberty forthwith. Since these two petitions are almost identical they can be conveniently dealt with together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners of these two petitions are partners of one firm styled as Ravi Emporium running a business of selling cloth in the city of Rajkot. It was alleged against them as could be gathered from the identical grounds of detention furnished to each of them. (Annexure C in both the petitions) that at the premises of this firm Ravi Emporium controlled cloth valued about Rs. 7 0 found in a raid made at their business premises on 11/04/1981. The said raid was alleged to have been made because there was information with the authorities that the said controlled cloth intended to be distributed to the low income group of the society at fixed price and in limited quota on the basis of the ration cards was being sold in blackmarket. These two partners had no authorisation for the purpose of dealing in this controlled cloth. In their statements given to the authorities and in the document styled as their acknowledgment they had admitted that they had no such authorisation that they had purchased this cloth from a place named Narol near the city of Ahmedabad from some undisclosed merchants through the auspices of some undisclosed broker. The grounds further stated that this cloth was meant for the Rajkot District Co- operative Federation and the receipts for the cloth meant for this federation also were discovered from the premises of Ravi Emporium. It was also alleged that this cloth was being sold to various parties without any bills and that a separate account was being maintained in that regard and the goods were purchased by these persons under the fictitious name of Dinesh Traders. The graunds ultimately stated in paragraph 12 of the grounds as follows:

(3.) Under sec. 3(1) of the Act the State Government may if satis- fied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of com- modities essential to the community it is necessary so to do make an order directing that such person be detained. The operative words of the enabling sec. 3(1) of the Act have the important phrase acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and therefore to this sec. 3(1) of the Act is appended `Explanation which is reproduced below. <SI>For the Purposes of this sub-section the expression acting in ally manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community means-</SI> <SI1>PREVENTION OF BLACK MARKETING AND MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLIES OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1980 - S. 3(1) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ART. 226 - COTTON TEXTILE (CONTROL) ORDER. 1948 - CLAUSE 3 - PETITION AGAINST DETENTION ORDER OF PETITIONER FOR SELLING CONTROLLED CLOTHES - ALLEGED BY RESPONDENT THAT THIS CLOTH WAS SOLD TO VARIOUS PARTIES WITHOUT ANY BILL AND THAT A SEPARATE ACCOUNT WAS BEING MAINTAINED IN THAT REGARD - ALSO CONTENDED THAT GOODS WERE PURCHASED BY THESE PARSONS UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME - ALSO CONTENDED THAT ORDER PASSED BY TEXTILE COMMISSIONER UNDER COTTON CONTROL ORDER ABOUT SALE OF CONTROLLED CLOTH TO CERTAIN AGENCIES BY ESTABLISHMENT APPROVED BY STATE GOVERNMENT AND NOT THROUGH DIRECT MERCHANTS - PETITIONER ARGUED THAT NO ORDER WAS THERE PROHIBITING A PRIVATE DEALER FROM DEALING WITH THIS CLOTH - ALSO CONTENDED THAT SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE STATUTORY DECISION OR DIRECTIONS - HELD THAT, PETITIONER THOUGH HAVING BEEN FOUND IN POSSESSION OF SUCH CONTROLLED CLOTH CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE COMMITTED ANY OFFENCE - HIS DETENTION THEREFORE, WAS ILLEGAL - PETITION ALLOWED. </SI1>