CHANDRAVATI FAKIRCHAND ZAVERI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the allegation that a shocking racket in blackmarketing in cement obtained under false pretexts was being run by Directors of a private limited company known as Mitt & Meer Private Limited three brothers two on whom were the Directors of the said company were detained pursuant to an order dated 23/10/1981 passed by the District Magistrate at Surat in exercise of powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing And Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (the Act). A Supervisor of the said Company was also detained in the same connection by an order passed of the same day one Natwarlal Nanalal Modi said to be acting as a middle-man in connection with the aforesaid racket was also detenus under the same provision by the same authority by the order of the same date The orders of detention passed by the District Magistrate were subsequently approved by the State Government. Their cases came up before Advisory Board which came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the said persons. These five detenus have approached this Court by way of the present batch of writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and have challenged the impugned orders of detention on numerous grounds. It is not necessary to examine the various contentions incorporated in the writ petitions and the points raised in support of the challenge to the impugned orders of detention having regard to the fact that the petitioners are entitled to succeed on a short ground on admitted facts.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the order of detention in case of each of the five detenus was passed on 23/10/1981 by the District Magistrate of Surat. As enjoined by sub sec. (3) of sec. 3 of the Act the order passed by the District Magistrate requires to be approved by the State Government within twelve days. The State Government approved the order of detention within the prescribed period of twelve days on November 2. 1981 Now sub-sec. (4) of sec. 3 enjoins that when any such order is made or approved by the State Government the fact requires to he reported to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order was made and such other particulars as in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the necessity for the order. The relevant provision in so far as material reads as under:

(3.) The law as enunciated in the aforesaid decision clearly applies to the facts of the present case in the context of provisions which are in pari materia in all respects. It may be mentioned that the report to be made to the Central Government is not an idle formality for sec. 14 of the Act in terms provides for revocation of detention orders. Clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 14 provides that notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer of a State Government concerned a detention order may be revoked or modified not only by the State Government but even by the Central Government. On a combined reading of sub-sec. (4) of sec. 3 and sec. 14 it would appear that the purpose of making a report by the State Government to the Central Government accompanied by the grounds of detention and relevant particulars within the prescribed period of seven days is with a view that in a fit case the Central Government may exercise the power under sec. 14(1)(a) to revoke such an order Be that as it may the point is concluded in favour of the detenus. Under the circumstances the order of detention passed in each of the five petitions deserves to be quashed and set aside by reason of the fact that there has been an infringement of the procedural safeguard embodied in sub-sec. (4) of sec. 3 of the Act. The petitions are therefore allowed. The order of detention passed in each of the writ petitions is quashed and set aside. Each of the detenus shall be set at liberty forthwith.