VAHIDBHAI SAIYADBHAI SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this special civil application, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 22.2.2003 in exercise of powers under sec. 3(1) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the PBM Act" for short) directing detention of the present petitioner under the above said Act because the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad acting under the Act came to the satisfaction that it was necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of essential commodity like kerosene essential to the community. The petitioner came to be detained in pursuance of the above said order from 31.3.2003.

(2.) The grounds which are served upon the detenu and placed on record reveal that the Government for the supply of essential commodity like kerosene has made arrangements to supply 12 liters of kerosene to ration card holders at Rs. 8.80ps. To regulate and maintain supply of the essential commodity, the colour of such kerosene is made blue and different from ordinary kerosene available in open market at much higher rate. On 9.12.2002 personnels of the Civil Supplies Department of the Government raided shop of the petitioner named as "Shanu Traders" free sale shop wherein the petitioner was found with 21 barrels of white kerosene. Each barrel containing 200 liters, totalling to 4300/- liters. The bill books were examined and statement of detenu was recorded in which the detenu stated that the kerosene had been obtained from the open market through dealer and, therefore, the detenu was found having breached the control orders of Essential Commodities Act. In the presence of the detenu and in presence of the panchas, nearby the shop, 9800 liters blue kerosene which was essential commodity, was found and detenu stated before the authority that such supply of blue kerosene was purchased by the detenu and was obtained from persons named Mahmad Yusuf Shaikh and Parvez Shaikh, though both the persons have denied to have supplied any blue kerosene to the detenu. Nearby the shop, three trucks were also found by the personnels of Supply Department. The drivers of which stated that the said kerosene was supplied by the detenu to them for utilization as fuel in the said truck. The detenu also revealed the process how the blue kerosene was turned into white one. All those materials were seized by the personnels of Government Department which amounted to Rs. 1,71,480/-, therefore, the allegation against detenu is after obtaining supply of blue kerosene which is essential commodity and made available by the Government to certain class of people at subsidized rate was obtained by the detenu and by process the same was turned into white kerosene and was sold in the free sale market on much higher rate and, thereby the detenu act prejudicially to maintenance of supplies of essential commodity like blue kerosene. It appears that, as alleged, the authority found the activities of the detenu two fold; firstly, obtaining supply of blue kerosene in contravention of Essential Commodities Act and, secondly, by a process converting said kerosene in white one and selling the same in free sale market with higher rate including to the truckers who in turn utilize this kerosene as an adulterated fuel. From the above said facts, the detaining authority came to the subjective satisfaction that except the action under the PBM Act there was no alternative to prevent the activities of detenu which were prejudicial to maintenance of supply of essential commodities. According to proposing authority, alternative steps such as filing of prosecution under sec. 3 read with sec. 7 of the PBM Act was of no avail because on filing such prosecution, the petitioner was likely to be released on bail and was likely to continue his activities to act prejudicial to maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) Mr. MM Tirmizi ld. advocate for the petitioner, Ld. AGP Ms. Mita Panchal for respondent no. 1 to 3 and Ms. PJ Davawala ld. Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel were heard at length. Ms. Davawala has placed on record the affidavit on behalf of Union of India, which is taken on record.