RAKESH PARASNATH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order of Detention No.DTN/ECA/2/2023 dtd. 31/3/2023 passed by the respondent No.2-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. H.R. Prajapati for the petitioner has mainly argued that though the order of detention is bad in law, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void, he would submit 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. He has vehemently submitted that this is a second round of litigation. He submitted that earlier present petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.25423 of 2022 at pre-detention stage, which was decided by the Division Bench on 16/12/2022. Said Special Civil Application was disposed of by Honourable Division Bench solely on the basis of statement made by learned AGP before the Honourable Court that as per the communication dtd. 15/12/2022 received from Sachin Police Station, neither any proposal is received nor any detention order is passed against the petitioner with regard to the FIR/s mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition. He also submitted that on 31/3/2023, present detenu was detained. Mr.Prajapati also submitted that at the time of disposing the aforesaid Special Civil Application clarification was also made by the Division Bench stating that the detaining authority shall not detain the petitioner under PASA Act, on account of FIR/s as mentioned in the communication. He has also submitted that in utter disregard to the order passed by the Division Bench, the detaining authority has passed the detention order and detained the present petitioner. He also submitted that the detaining authority has acted in high handed manner and it is in blatant disregard of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, such order is required to be quashed and set aside, in view of the fact that the order of detention is not in consonance with the provisions of Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 3 of the Act.

(3.) On the other hand, learned AGP, Mr Jadeja, has opposed this petition and submitted that considering the grounds of detention, it appears that the petitioner had indulged in such activities which is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities. He, therefore, urged that the petition deserves to be dismissed. He has candidly submitted that earlier when the petition was preferred by the petitioner at that point of time the concerned AGP has enquired from the concerned police station about the intention of the authority for initiation of proceedings of detention against the petitioner under PASA Act. He also submitted that said complaint was registered before Sachin GIDC Police Station and concerned AGP had inadvertently inquired from the officer of the police station, whereas present proceedings are initiated by the office of the District Magistrate under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance & Supplies of Essential Commodities Act , 1955. Both the agencies are different, distinct and separate. Bare perusal of the papers transpires that there was some communication gap between two agencies and the office of District Magistrate was at all not aware about the filing of matter before this Court by the petitioner, wherein specific observations have been made by this Court at the time of disposal of the petition. Therefore, it appears that the detaining authority was not at all aware about the earlier proceedings and the observations made by this Court while deciding such petition and inadvertently, in absence of knowledge of earlier order of this Court, order of detention has been passed.