NARESH KUMAR PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL Vs. SATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. M. A. Shaikh, Central Government Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent No. 3-Union of India and Mr. K. T. Dave, waives service on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The reply affidavits/rejoinders filed by the respective parties are taken on record and considered.

(2.) THE present petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order of detention bearing No. SP/ tps/atk/case H/07 dated 16-9-2007 passed against the petitioner by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Patan, under the purported exercise of powers vested with him under Sec. 3 (2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') at the pre-execution stage.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is an authorized distributor of i. O. C. since last more than 10 years and carrying on his business of L. P. G. According to the petitioner, the Government of Gujarat exempted L. P. G. dealers from the application of the provisions of Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 and such exemption was extended from time to time which continued from 21st May, 2007 to 20th November, 2007, and therefore, no search and seizure could have been carried out by the District Supply Officer or any other officer, however, the District Supply officer, Patan under the instructions of the District Collector, Patan used to harass the petitioner and all L. P. G. Distributors by forcing them to remain present with certain documents and materials on every Monday. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a staunch Congress loyalist and his wife is Vice-President of District Women Congress Cell of Mehsana District and that the detention order has been passed on account of political vendetta with a view to keep the petitioner away at the time of election as the respondent no. 2 is in favour of the ruling party B. J. P. ; that under the instructions of the respondent No. 2, the District Supply Officer and the Inspecting squad, carried out inspection at the place of distributorship of the petitioner on 7-9-2007 and by alleging certain irregularities like discrepancy in stock of L. P. G. cylinders, customer register not up-to-date, non-display of price list, details of booked customers is not displayed, opening list of empty as well as refilled l. P. G. cylinders not displayed, fire safety measures not kept ready etc. , and thereafter, a seizure order was passed on 8-9-2007 even though there was no shortfall/excess stock at the time of inspection. According to the petitioner, taking into consideration such alleged minor/technical irregularities, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner had indulged into activities of black marketing of L. P. G. cylinders, and hence, the detention order.