VRUJLAL NATVARLAL RAYKUNDALIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of habeas corpus and challenged the order dated 29. 5. 2007 made in exercise of power under section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act" ). The prayer for release of the petitioner was pressed only on the grounds that representation of the petitioner was not expeditiously disposed and drastic measure of preventive detention was taken without examining the option of filing a criminal complaint for the alleged offence.

(2.) ACCORDING to the grounds of detention supplied with the impugned order dated 29. 5. 2007, kerosene was declared to be an essential commodity under the provisions of section 2 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and, according to the notification issued under section 3 of that Act, no dealer appointed under the public distribution system or a transporter would sell, distribute or supply kerosene under the public distribution system to any person other than the person for whom the supplies was meant. The District Supplies Officer and his inspection team had, on 11. 5. 2007, inspected the godown and premises of the petitioner and found stock of 7598 litres of unaccounted kerosene and 333 litres of oil; the petitioner did not have any licence or permit for purchasing the stock and he was selling the stock in public in violation of the Kerosene Restriction On Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price Order, 1993. Similarly, for the storage of oil also, requisite licence was not obtained by the petitioner from the competent officer. After referring to the elaborate enquiries made and the confessions of the petitioner himself regarding purchase and sale of kerosene for earning illegal monthly profit of Rs. 15,000/- since last two years, the impugned order stated that two cases under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were registered earlier on 14. 2. 2005 and 31. 7. 2006 in which 1525 and 75 litres of kerosene was seized and part of that stock was confiscated against which the petitioner had not preferred any appeal. After considering the facts and material placed before the District Magistrate, the impugned order was made on the grounds that detention of the petitioner was the appropriate measure for preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of kerosene to the community and that there were reasons to believe that prosecution would not be sufficient because the petitioner would continue his illegal activity after being released on bail.

(3.) THE petitioner has, through his advocate, made an elaborate representation dated 13. 6. 2007 with a request to take out copies thereof and forward them to other competent authorities for their consideration.