BALAKRISHNA AMBALAL THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . It is a matter of regret that even though, this Court has taken the view, more than 15 years back, to the effect that, if any order is passed releasing the seized goods, it is required to be placed before the detaining authority. Yet, in the instant case, such order is not produced by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority and the detaining authority has not considered the said aspect in the detention order, may be because the said document was not made available to it by the sponsoring authority.

(2.) . Apart from the aforesaid aspect, the State Government has not even cared to launch appropriate proceedings under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, as, even if the detention order is passed, the State is not prevented from launching the ordinary prosecution under the aforesaid provision. The petitioner, who is alleged to have indulged in the activities of black marketing by selling kerosene by charging high price, is not even subjected to the prosecution under Sec. 7 of the Act wherein imprisonment is provided for a term upto 7 years. It is exhibited in the present case as to how the authority is dealing with the cases under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

(3.) . By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 16-8-2002, which is at page 15 - Annexure-A in the compilation. By the impugned order, the detenu is detained by the District Magistrate, Kheda, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Sec. 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.