DEVJIBHAI KALABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a detenu under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (the Act for short) has challenged the order of his preventive detention passed by the Deputy Secretary Government of Gujarat Food and Civil Supplies Department by order and in the name of Governor of Gujarat at Annexure B dated 24 It recites that the Government of Gujarat is satisfied with respect to the petitioner that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities i.e petroleum product (kerosene) essential to the community it is necessary to preventively detain him and therefore the impugned order is passed. The petitioner was also supplied with grounds of detention of even date. The grounds of detention are in Gujarati and are at Annexure D to the petition .. ... ... ... ...

(2.) Mr. D. D. Vyas learned advocate for the petitioner amongst Others contended that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority against the petitioner as reflected in the order of detention becomes equivocal and confusing when the detention order is read in the light of the grounds of detention supporting the order and as supplied to the petitioner and therefore the subjective satisfaction underlying the detention order can be treated to be unreal confusing and equivocal and on that ground alone the detention order is liable to be quashed. ... ... ... ...

(3.) So far as the aforesaid contention canvassed by Mr. Vyas is concerned a mere look at the detention order shows that the detaining authority was satisfied about the need to preventively detain the petitioner with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities i.e. petroleum product (kerosene) essential to the community. The order of detention therefore clearly indicated that the petitioner was required to be detained with a view to keeping him out of harms way as far as supply of essential commodity viz. kerosene was concerned. Of course the detention order does show that kerosene is a petroleum product. However the satisfaction underlying the detention order as conveyed to the petitioner by virtue of the detention order was a clear satisfaction regard the need to preventively detain the petitioner with a view to seeing that he does not disturb maintenance of supplies of kerosene to the community. However when we turn to the grounds of detention at Annexure `D we find that the subjective satisfaction permeating the detention order as mentioned in the grounds of detention becomes overlapping confusing and equivocal satisfaction. We will presently show how the said conclusion is reached from a close scrutiny of the grounds of detention at Annexure D. The second para of the grounds when translated into English reads to the effect that with a view to enabling the petitioner to make an effective representation against the detention order to the State Government he is being informed of the grounds. The grounds of detention were as indicated in the later para. It has been further stated that on each of the grounds mentioned therein a separate order of detention can be passed against the detenu and on that basis a composite single order was passed. Then follows ground No. 2 which mentions that kerosene is an essential commodity for the society and with a view to preventing the petitioner from disturbing maintenance of the stock and from disturbing distribution thereof the detention order was passed against the detenu. This para therefore makes it clear that the sole basis of the order of detention was the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority about the need to preventively detain the petitioner with a view to seeing that stock of essential commodity viz. kerosene remained well maintained and distributed in the society. Thereafter follows ground No. 3 which recited that the petitioner was carrying on partnership business in the name and style of Jai Ganesh Petroleum at village Mitana on Morbi-Rajkot road and he was having wholesale and retail licence for dealing in cement diesel crude and kerosene. Thereafter in paras of the grounds is recited the result of the on-spot inspection made at the petitioners pump on 31-5-1986. Therein it is mentioned that deficit of various items of essential commodities was found reflected from the account books maintained by the petitioner on spot and they related to deficit of 400 litres of crude (retail) 482 litres of diesel and 2778 litres of kerosene. Thereafter follow grounds Nos. 5 6 and 7 (second) 6 wherein different incidents are cited showing the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner while acting as a dealer of kerosene and also alleging clandestine and illegal diversion of various quantities of kerosene by the petitioner under the transactions mentioned in these paras. Then follows ground No. 7 which stated that during the inquiry it was found that opening balance and the sale price of commodities were not properly mentioned upto date in the Board. That sale of diesel on 30-5-1986 was not shown in the stock register and that indicated that partnership firm of the petitioner was not maintaining proper accounts. Having mentioned these grounds the conclusion to which the detaining authority reached was indicated as under. Looking to the aforesaid facts it became clear that the petitioner had committed breaches of clause 23 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981 and had also committed breaches of conditions Nos. 4-and 9 of the licence. It is then recited that having done 80 the petitioner had committed offences under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1950 and looking to the gravity of the aforesaid acti-vities and with a view to preventing the petitioner from indulging in such illegal activities forthwith and also with a view to preventing the petitioner from indulging in such activities in future the State of Gujarat had passed the order of detention against the petitioner on 21-7-1986