SHANKARLAL VARDICHAND PURABIA PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition, the petitioner challenges detention order dated 18.9.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Na ari purportedly in exercise of power under sub section (2) of section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.

(2.) IN fact, the petitioner has challenged the detention order on various grounds, but in view of affidavit filed by the Union of India respondent No.4, the respondent No.2 is not able to satisfy this Court that the representation dated 23.9.2013 received by it has been expeditiously dealt with in accordance with law and also it forwarded the same to the respondent No.4 i.e. Union of India at the earliest. Before facts and reply filed by the Union of India is considered, it is relevant to reproduce the observations made in para 10 of the case of Amir Shad Khan Vs. L. Hmingliana, 1991 AIR(SC) 1983.

(3.) KEEPING in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the duty is cast on the District Magistrate to send the representation to the competent authority for its consideration as required under the provisions of law. Learned APP Mr. Dabhi appearing for the respondent No.1 State states at bar that the respondent No.1 has forwarded petitioner's representation by post on 11.10.2013, whereas the respondent No.4 in its counter affidavit sworn on 8.11.2013, more particularly, in ground (j), specifically stated that the respondent No.4 has not received representation either from the respondent No.1 or from the respondent No.2. So, it becomes clear that the detaining authority failed to perform its duty to forward the detenue's representation to all the authorities who have right to consider the representation.