CHETANBHAI G SHETH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are co-detenu have challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 21.5.2002 passed against both of them by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Sec. 3(2) of The Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "PBM Act").

(2.) The impugned order of detentions passed on 21.5.2002, were executed on 22.5.2002 and grounds for detention were supplied to the detenu. It is the say that the sponsoring machinery had formulated grounds for detention and same were placed before the detaining authority. The detaining authority on the material placed, recorded its subjective satisfaction to the effect that the petitioners are involved in violating the provisions of Control Order-Kerosene (Restriction on use and Fixing Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1993) as well as the provisions of Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control & Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1981). It is alleged that the blue Kerosene required to be distributed from Fair Price Shop was not adequately supplied/distributed to the card-holders and was siphoned for getting more price than the price fixed by the Order of 1993. Detaining authority has recorded that the petitioners are likely to indulge in same activities and it would disrupt the system of distribution of blue Kerosene from the Fair Price Shop started on the strength of the licence issued to the petitioners by the Mamlatdar of Mahuva Taluka. Statements of the card-holders of the concerned village as well as the copies of the ration-cards are also part of the grounds of detention intimated and served to the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the orders of detention passed against them on number of grounds. However, Id. Counsel Mr. Thakkar appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions, has concentrated and restricted his arguments mainly on two grounds viz. (i) that the petitioners were not supplied with the copy of the Order of 1993 and that copy of the Order of 1981 supplied to the petitioners was found illegible. Some pages of the Order of 1981 supplied to the petitioners were illegible and this non-supply of important and vital document has resulted into serious prejudice to the petitioners in making effective representation under their right flowing from Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India, and (ii) that the detaining authority was supposed to pass the order of detention promptly and delay of about 1 month & 7 days in passing the orders of detention should be treated as fatal as this delay has not been explained by the detaining authority.