ABDUL MAJID AHMAD PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner, who is detained under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ("PBM Act" for short), has challenged his detention order dated 23.03.2006 on various grounds. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner is detained under provisions of the PBM Act. With the detention order, the petitioner is also served with the ground of detention. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that the petitioner is engaged in black marketing activity in the matter of distribution of kerosene. That even though the licence for authorisation is given to the petitioner for distributing kerosene to cardholders, the petitioner has tried to divert large quantity of kerosene at other places. The authority, after considering the various material produced on record has ultimately detained the petitioner under the said provisions of PBM Act as the authority was of the opinion that in order to prevent the petitioner from his black marketing activity, it is necessary to detain him under the provisions of the PBM Act. The detaining authority after being subjectively satisfied, detained the petitioner by passing detention order under Sub-section (2) of Section (3) of the PBM Act.

(2.) Mr Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that without any basis or material the authority has passed order or it cannot be said that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority is vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner-detenu made a representation to the authority on 15.04.2006 but the said representation is not dealt with by the State or Central Government. In this connection, the affidavit-in-reply is filed by one Shri A.K. Ganguly, Under Secretary, Department of Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi. The said officer has stated in paragraph 5 of his reply as under:-

(3.) Mr Prajapati submitted that the representation which was sent by the detenu was required to be dealt with promptly. On behalf of the State Government, affidavit-in-reply was filed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch in his paragraph 11 has dealt with the said aspect.