DINESHBHAI RAJKUMAR NICHANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 7/4/2012 (Annexure 'A'), passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') with a view to prevent the petitioner from black marketing essential commodities like wheat and acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities essential to the community.

(2.) THE petitioner-detenu is residing in Rajkot. It is alleged that one firm named Kanaiya Proteins is doing its business of wheat at Gondal. On 26/12/2012 the concerned officers of Rajkot District Supply Department, raided the premises of Kanaiya Proteins, Gondal and wheat weighing 9150 Kgs., came to be traced out. Upon preliminary test, it transpired that the bags in which the commodity wheat was stored, were of Gujarat State Civil Supply Department, Rajkot. Even considering the wheat itself, the same was found to be of the Supply Department . Upon statement of one of the partners of Kanaiya Proteins being recorded by the authority, it was found that the commodity wheat was sold to the firm by the petitioner. In connection with this, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and others being C.R. No. 3048/2012 with Gondal City Police Station on 5/4/2012. It is the case of the petitioner that before the police authority takes any action pursuant to the said FIR, the respondent no. 2 District Magistrate, Rajkot, passed the detention order dated 7/4/2012 on the ground that the petitioner is likely to continue the alleged activities either obtaining stay order from the Court or after his arrest pursuant to the said FIR, after enlargement on bail.

(3.) MS Shruti Pathak, Ld. AGP for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 vehemently opposed this petition and read over the reply affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 7/4/2012 is legal and valid and cannot be interfered with. My attention was drawn to a circular dated 10/12/2001 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Food and Supply Department of the State and it is submitted that in the instant matter, the detention order was passed on 7/4/2012 which was executed on 24/4/2012, but the uncle of the petitioner made representation on 17/5/2012 and, therefore, it was time barred.