UMESHKUMAR MOHANLAL ANAJWALA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dtd. 15/5/2023 passed by the respondent-District Magistrate, Surat, in exercise of powers under Sec. 3 (2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, by which he has been detained with a view to prevent him from acting in prejudicial manner to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community.

(2.) Learned Advocate, Mr.Daiya for the petitioner has mainly argued that though the order of detention is bad in law, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void, he would submit that on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in recording his subjective satisfaction for passing the detention order. He submitted that in absence of any material which would satisfy the Authority, who has passed the impugned order, it is totally non-application of mind on the part of the Authority. It is respectfully submitted that, the order of detention has been passed on 15/5/2023 on the basis of single FIR but if we look to the FIR and order passed by authority it is alleged that the petitioner is facilitated for transporting Urea in his godown and he is helping other accused in misappropriation of stock but looking to the table mentioned in the detention order there may be negligence in maintaining the stocks but no offence is committed by the petitioner nor anything comes on record that by which it can be said that the petitioner has misappropriated the stock and only on assumption and presumption the FIR came to be lodged and now considering those offences the petitioner came to be detained. It is submitted that the subordinate authority put a proposal with ready and prepared grounds before the detaining authority and without looking to the material placed before it, the authority has passed the order of detention and, therefore, the order of detention is non application of mind and without there being any material about black marketing. Therefore, the order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned AGP, Mr.Raval, has opposed this petition and submitted that considering the grounds of detention, it appears that the petitioner had indulged in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities. He, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned AGP has submitted that the present proceedings are initiated by the office of the District Magistrate under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance and Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. It is submitted that since the petitioner has indulged in the activities of black marketing of Urea, the FIR was registered and detention order was passed.