DILIPKUMAR AMRUTLAL GANATRA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three important questions of the paramount public importance that arise for our consideration in group of these 8 detention matters are as under : Firstly, "Whether enmass cyclostyled paroles granted to the detenu under Sec. 15 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short 'BM Act') and that too on the basis of general policy adopted by the State Government that on every religious festivals like Diwali, Id , X'mas and Makarsankranti, etc., the detenu may be 'temporarily released' on parole without even waiting for the request application, in the first hand retrospectively vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the State Government regarding original order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority and/or on the other hand prospectively also, the same vitiates the further continued detention of the detenu ?" Secondly, "Whether Sec. 15 of the BM Act vests any absolute, unfettered and arbitrary powers in the State Government to lightly 'temporarily release' the detenu on parole, unmindful of the underlying spirit and object of the BM Act for which he essentially and actually came to be preventively detained ?" and Thirdly, "Whether the guidelines prepared by the State Government for 'temporarily releasing' the detenu on parole either on the ground of religious festivals and/or on the ground of illness, etc., in later case without any indepth inquiry regarding the truthfulness and genuineness of the causes pleaded in support of the same, which ex-fade run counter to the preventive object of the BM Act can be said to be legal and valid exercise of powers and accordingly be permitted to continue as they are ? "

(2.) At the very outset it may be stated, that at the joint request and with the consent of all the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, we have heard all these petitions together and accordingly therefore also propose to decide and dispose of the same by this common judgment.

(3.) Few relevant facts : In order to have on the spot factual perspective emerging from the various grounds of detention, in each of these petitions, we for the sake of brevity and convenience, reproduce the relevant facts and circumstances from each of the petitions which are as under : (1) In Special Criminal Application No. 1400 of 1991, the petitioner came to be detained by an order dated 9-9-1991 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot, for the alleged black-marketing activities of the essential commodity, namely, Edible Oil. Thereafter, under Sec. 15 of the BM Act, he was temporarily released on parole; firstly on the ground of Diwali festival from 4-11-1991 to 11- 11-1991 and thereafter for one day on the ground of illhcalth - in all for 8 days. (2) In Special Criminal Application No. 1540 of 1991, the petitioner came to be detained by an order dated 30-8-1991 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar for the alleged black-marketing activities of the essential commodity, namely, LPG Gas Cylinders. Thereafter, he was temporarily released on parole from 7-9-1991 to 9-9-1991 (3 days), from 13-9-1991 to 17-9-1991 (4 days) and from 1-11-1991 to 8-11-1991 (8 days) - in all for 15 days. (3) In Special Criminal Application No. 1632 of 1991, the petitioner came to be detained by an order dated 19-10-1991 passed by the District Magistrate, Gandhinagar for the alleged black-marketing activities of the essential commodity, namely, Wheat. Thereafter, he was temporarily released on Festival parole from 4-11-1991 to 11-11-1991 (for 8 days). (4) In Special Criminal Application No. 1633 of 1991, the petitioner came to be detained by an order dated 19-10-1991 passed by the District Magistrate, Gandhinagar, for the alleged black-maiketing activities of the essential commodity, namely, Wheat. Thereafter, he was temporarily released on Festival parole from 3-11-1991 to 11-11-1991 (8 days) and thereafter on further parole on the ground of illness of his wife from 22-11-1991 to 24-11-1991 (3 days) - in all for 11 days. (5) In Special Criminal Application No. 1713 of 1991, the petitioner came to be detained by an order dated 19-10-1991, passed by the District Magistrate, Gandhinagar for his black-marketing activities of the essential commodity, namely, Wheat. Thereafter, he was temporarily released on Festival parole from 3-11-1991 to 11-11-1991 (for 8 days), (6) In Special Criminal Application No. 1754 of 1991, the petitioner came to be detained by an order dated 16-10-1991 by the District Magistrate, Junagadh for his alleged black-marketing activities of the essential commodity, namely, Edible Oil. Thereafter, he was temporarily released on parole from 25-10-1991 (even before the impugned order of detention came to be approved by the State Government) to 1-11-1991 and thereafter from 4-11-1991 to 11-11-1991 on the ground of Festival parole. (7) In Special Criminal Application No. 1755 of 1991, the petitioner came to be detained by an order dated 16-10-1991 passed by the District Magistrate, Junagadh for his alleged black-marketing activities of essential commodity, namely, Edible Oil. Thereafter, he came to be temporarily released on parole from 25-10-1991 (even before the impugned order of detention came to be approved by the State Government) to 29-10-1991 (5 days); from 1-11-1991 to 3-11-1991 (3 days); from 4-11- 1991 to 10-11-1991 (7 days) and from 12-11-1991 to 19-11-1991 - in all 15 days. (8) In Special Criminal Application No. 4 of 1992, the petitioner came to be detained by an order dated 13-8-1991, passed by the State Government, in respect of the alleged black-marketing activities of essential commodity, namely, Petrol/Diesel. Thereafter, he was temporarily released on parole from 24-8-1991 to 31-8-1991 (7 days); from 1-9-1991 to 4-9-1991 (4 days) and on Festival parole from 4-11-1991 to 11-11-1991 (8 days) - in all for 19 days. The facts stated above clearly disclose that in all these eight petitions, the petitioners were released on the ground of Diwali festival and due to illness either of themselves or their family members. On the basis of the particulars stated above (excluding the particulars pertaining to the temporary release on parole) and the relevant materials in support of the same, the concerned Detaining Authorities were satisfied that the petitioners were black-marketeers and were carrying on their alleged blackmarketing activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the smooth supplies of commodities essential to the community in their respective areas. Further, looking to the very gravity and seriousness of the allegations spelling out the potentially of each of the petitioners to carry on their alleged illegal activities unabated in future also, disturbing the maintemnce of supplies of the respective commodities essential to the commoniry, the Detaining Authorities were still further satisfied that the usual remedy available under the ordinary laws of the land by way of some departmental proceeding? and actions and/or the prosecution under Sec. 12AA of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, etc., were far too inadequate to meet with the exigencies of the grave situation created by them from carrying further their black-marketing activities. It was under these circumstances that the concerned Detaining Authorities were ultimately constrained to invoke the cxtia-ordinary powers under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the BM Act for clamping down the necessary orders of detection, which as seen above, came to be clamped down on each of the petitioners. The petitioners, under the circumstances, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of detention passed against them have approached this Court by way of the present eight writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia praying for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus and for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders of detention passed tigainst them setting them at liberty forthwith.