RAMESHCHANDRA VASANTLAL BHOJANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 15.6.2007 (Annexure 'A'), passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') with a view to prevent the petitioner from black marketing essential commodities like kerosene and acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities essential to the community.

(2.) The petitioner-detenu is residing in Rajkot and he is a licence-holder and running a kerosene distribution shop in Rajkot under the Essential Commodities Act, 1981 in the name "Bhavani Petroleum". It is alleged that on 6.4.2007, the Supply Officer, Rajkot raided the shop of the petitioner. During the raid, it was found that the present petitioner was selling blue kerosene in open market at a higher price than the market price and thus for personal gains and economic profit, the detenu had committed illegality and indulged in prejudicial activities to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities, though it was required to be sold to cardholders only. After a thorough checking of the said firm and after recording the statements of the concerned persons/witnesses, the petitioner's firm was found to be indulging in black marketing. A Criminal case was lodged against him and he was released on bail by the court. The grounds of detention are annexed at Annexure 'B' to the petition.

(3.) Challenging the order of detention, Mr H.R.Prajapati, learned advocate contended that the petitioner-detenu made representation dated 20.6.2007 against the impugned detention order through his advocate, which is produced at Annexure 'C' to the petition. In that representation, inter alia, the detaining authority was requested to forward the copy of the said representation to the higher authorities competent to release the detenu as mentioned in the grounds of detention however, the said representation has not been forwarded by the District Magistrate to the concerned authorities for their consideration and hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his argument, Mr Prajapati has relied on (1) judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amir Shad Khan v. L. Hmingliana (AIR 1991 SC 1983) and (2) judgment of this Court dated 28.7.1993 delivered in Special Civil Application No.765 & 766 of 1993.