YUSUFBHAI MAHAMUD HAFEZI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained by the second respondent (District Magistrate. Surat) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (here inafter referred to as the Act) upon being satisfied that the detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. The order of detention Annexure A is dated 10/09/1982 The petitioner was taken under detention on the same day. The grounds of detention Annexure C dated 10/09/1982 were served upon the petitioner when he was taken under detention The petitioner made a representation on 17/09/1982 to the first respondent (State of Gujarat) against his detention. The representation was considered by the first respondent and it was rejected on 21/09/1982 and the petitioner was duly informed about the same. On 5/10/1982 the petitioner instituted the present petition challenging the detention order. The petition came up for preliminary hearing on 6/10/1982 On that day rule was issued on the petition and it was made returnable on 13/10/1982 The petition has now reached hearing before this Court and it is being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) The petitioner herein is alleged to have been involved as an intermediary in the clandestine disposal of 600 bags of cement received for the purpose of being used for the irrigation project under the control of Jhuj Head Works. Division No. 1. Vansda District Bulsar. Those 600 bage of cement were removed in two consignments on two different dates from the godowns situate at or nearabout Dharampur. The first lot of 200 bags of cement was removed from the godown on 28/06/1982 in a motor truck bearing no. G.T.T. 5059 and the cement bags were delivered at a site known as Diamond Nagar in village Laskana situate at a distance of about 4 kilometres from Kamrej Cross Roads. At that site one Omprakash Gulabchand Varma alias Homjibhai Contractor had taken up a contract to con struct buildings and the cement was diverted for being used for such construction. The second lot of 400 bags of cement was removed from the godown in two trucks bearing numbers G.T.T. 5059 (which was used on the previous day) and G.T.C. 4570 on the next day i.e. 29/06/1982 and it was meant to be supplied to Homjibhai Contractor. However on the night of 29/06/1982 both the trucks were intercepted near a bus stand at village Bajipura within the jurisdiction of Valod Police Station and upon investigation which followed. The conspiracy to divert the cement from the Irrigation Project to private use for personal gain came to light. In the course of investigation it transpired that Homjibhai Contractor had agreed to pay Rs. 52/ per bag to the petitioner who in turn had agreed to pay Rs. 43.00 per bag to the two Assistant Engineers incharge of the office of Jhuj Head Works Division No. 1 Vansda in collusion with whom the entire transaction was planned and concluded. It is under these circumstances that the order of detention has come to be passed against the petitioner.

(3.) The two Assistant Engineers who are said to have been involved in the conspiracy and who too were taken in detention along with the petitioner had instituted Special Criminal Applications Nos. 1398 of 1982 and 1399 of 1982 challenging their orders of detention. These writ petitions have been disposed of by judgments such have concluded to day. In the course of the judgment rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 1398 of 1982 (DALPATBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL V. DIST MAGISTRATE SURAT) all the material facts upon which reliance has been placed by the detaining authority in order to detain all the persons concerned with these transactions have been set out in detail Since the present petition is a companion matter inasmuch as the detention herein is founded on the same facts and circumstances we are not cotting out again in detail the substance of the allegations against the petitioner as contained in the grounds of detention. It is not in dispute that the grounds of detention herein are identical with the grounds of detention in those two cases save and except that the grounds in the instant case are formulated as if they are addressed to the petitioner whereas in the other two cases the grounds were so worded as to have been addressed to those respective detenus. We shall at a later stage reproduce only the material portion of the grounds. For the said of brevity therefore the relevant portions of the judgment rendered in Special Criminal Application No.1398 of 1982 may be read as a part and parcel of this judgment.