PIYUSHKUMAR TRITKUMAR SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India two writs, one in the nature of certiorary for quashing the detention order dated 15-7-1998 passed against the petitioner and another in the nature of Habeas corpus for immediate release of the petitioner from illegal detention have been prayed for.

(2.) Brief facts are that the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad in exercise of powers under S. 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short "the Act") passed the impugned detention order, Annexure : A to the writ petition, and simultaneously furnished grounds of detention to the petitioner as contained in Annexure : B. From the grounds of detention it appears that from the material produced before the Detaining Authority he came to subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was indulging in activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of distribution arrangement of essential commodities like edible oil. Number of irregularities have been disclosed in the grounds of detention. One of such irregularities is that the petitioner was carrying on black marketing in ground-nut oil under false label of other brand and was earning undue profit at the rate of Rs. 50.00 more per box than the fixed price for such edible oil. Hand machines, labels, empty boxes were also found from the premises where such activity was being carried on by the petitioner. The petitioner obtained licence to carry on business in edible oil, grains, pulse, etc. from particular premises, but he shifted his business to another place where raid was organised and no permission of competent Authority was obtained for change in the place of business. Statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Inspecting Team. Inter alia the petitioner admitted before the inspecting team in his statement that he was adultering low price oil in ground nut oil and was earning illegal profit of Rs. 50.00 per box. He also admitted that hand machines, labels, etc. were found in his premises so also empty boxes so that the oil may be sold under different brand. Improper accounts were also found maintained by the petitioner. The detaining Authority further found that the petitioner was storing the edible oil, an essential commodity, at an unauthorised place and was selling in black market at high price. Accordingly the impugned order was passed.

(3.) This order has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on several grounds.