BUDHABHAI SOMABHAI PARMAR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KHEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-detenu challenges the legality and validity of the order of his detention dated 1/06/1988 passed by the District Magistrate) Kheda under the provisions of Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The petitioner was having a licence for fair price shop at village Fatepur District Kheda. His shop was searched by the Mamlatdar in the month of August 1987 Thereafter further search was made by the Supply Inspector and again some enquiry was also made by the office of the Collector. On the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation by the respective officers and which was placed before the detaining authority the detaining authority (i. e the District Magistrate Kheda) came to the conclusion that the petitioner-detenu was indulging in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities viz. pamoline oil sugar rice and wheat. Therefore he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner so as to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that copies of several documents referred to in the grounds of detention and which have been taken into consideration by the detaining authority while arriving at the necessary satisfaction as required under the provisions of the Act have not been supplied to the detenu and thus the constitutional mandate contained in Art. 22(5) of the Constitution is violated. In his submission had sufficient material been communicated to him the petitioner-detenu would have been able to make representation against that material which was relied upon for arriving at the necessary satisfaction for passing the impugned order. Since the basic facts meaning thereby the material facts Constituting the grounds of detention had not been communicated to the detenu the detenu could not make effective and adequate representation and thus the mandate given under Art. 22(5) has not been complied with.