SAJANBHAI SAMATBHAI BHARWAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner-detenu has challenged his detention order dated 27.11.2002. By the impugned order, the petitioner-detenu is detained in exercise of the powers under section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the PBM" for short), as, it is found by the authority that he is indulged in black marketing.

(2.) Along with the detention order, the detenu was also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, it is stated that the petitioner is keeping illegally "Naptha" in his agricultural land and on further scrutiny, certain barrels of Naptha were found from the land of the petitioner. The said quantity of Naptha was brought in two motor tankers at his agriculture land. The department, after making necessary inquiry, seized the material and recorded the statements of the petitioner on the very day, i.e. on 25.9.2002. It is submitted that the petitioner also admitted the said illegality by making a statement before the authority on the same day, i.e. on 25.9.2002. The said fact is also mentioned in the detention order in para 3(5). Thereafter, the sample was sent for FSL report and, after receiving the report, the detention order is passed, which is dated 27.11.2003. The said detention order is challenged by the petitioner by way of this petition.

(3.) At the time of hearing of this petition, it is submitted by Mr.Pahwa that there is a delay in passing the detention order. It is submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 25.9.2002. He submitted that the petitioner also admitted about his illegality on that very day at the time when the officer of the department raided his premises. It is submitted that, in spite of the said fact, the detaining authority waited upto 27.11.2002 for passing the detention order. He submitted that, if, really the activities of the petitioner were required to be curbed, it was not necessary to wait for such a long time, as, delay in passing the detention order would frustrate the entire object of passing the detention order. In Special Civil Application No.78 of 2000 which is decided on 16.3.2000, this Court (Coram: A.L.Dave,J) has observed in para 6.1 as under.: