NAVINCHANDRA SUKHLAL KHANDOL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order of detention at pre -execution stage passed by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short, the 'PBM Act') being illegal, invalid, null and void, malafide, misuse of powers and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petitions are as follows: -

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that immediately, F.I.R. being II -C.R. No. 3013 of 2013 was lodged with Bhimashar police station on 21.02.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is submitted that on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R., as aforesaid, the respondent No. 2 passed the order of detention under the PBM Act. According to petitioner -Mr. N.S. Khandol, the respondent No. 2 has failed to consider the representation dated 25.02.2013 made by him. It is submitted that for the irregularities and for the same reasons on which, order of detention has been passed, the licensing authority has suspended licenses of both the petitioners by order dated 30.01.2013 for a period of 90 days with immediate effect and thus, once the licenses are suspended for a period of 90 days, there is no possibility of the petitioners continuing their business because they would not be given stock of essential articles by the authority. Therefore, the purpose and object of preventive detention is to prevent the petitioners but when the petitioners are already prevented by resorting to less drastic remedy, exercising powers of preventive detention would be illegal and without jurisdiction and it would be for a wrong purpose.

(3.) PER contra, learned A.G.P. Ms. Trusha Mehta for the respondent -State filed affidavit -in -reply in Special Civil Application No. 3224 of 2013 inter alia denying each and every allegations, averments and contentions raised in both the petitions and took the Court through the orders and files which were kept present in the Court including detention order dated 01.02.2013 passed in exercise of Section 8(1) of the PBM Act.