RANJITSINGH JOGINDARSINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 4439 of 1998 by the learned single Judge by an order dated 19/06/1998.

(2.) . To appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal, few relevant facts may now be stated : It is the case of the appellant that on 24/04/1998, an order was passed by the District Magistrate. Vadodara, respondent No. 2 herein, directing the detention of the appellant under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is the case of the appellant that Demala Enterprise, Baroda was dealing in sale and distribution of kerosene. Girdharilal Gulabbhai Demala was doing business in Shed No. 988/13, G.I.D.C. Makarpura, Vadodara. The appellant was working as Manager and he-was also holding Power-of-Attorney of Girdharilal Demala. According to the appellant, by a public notice dated 15/09/1997, said Girdharilal Demala cancelled Power-of-Attorney given to the appellant and the appellant was relieved as Manager of Demala Enterprise. It is stated in petition filed by appellant-petitioner that Civil Supply Department, Vadodara found certain irregularities in the business of Demala Enterprise. A raid was carried out in the business premises of Demala Enterprise and irregularities were noticed. Meanwhile, Assembly Elections took place in which new Government was elected which is now in power. The Minister for Civil Supply belongs to the same State from which appellant hails. It is the say of appellant, that Hon'ble Minister for Civil Supply is neither related to him nor the appellant has personal relations with the Hon'ble Minister. But only with a view to harass the appellant, Mr. Yogesh Patel, respondent No. 3 herein, who is now elected M.L.A., from Raopura Constituency of Baroda, made certain allegations against the Hon'ble Minister as well as against the appellant alleging that though the appellant had indulged in black marketing activities, he was not detained though other persons were detained. There was exchange of letters as also statements and counter-statements between the respondent No. 3 on the one hand and the Hon'ble Minister for Civil Supply on the other. The Hon'ble Chief Minister had to intervene in the matter. In these circumstances, though the appellant had not committed any illegality or irregularity and that power-of-attorney granted in favour of appellant by Girdharilal Demala was revoked and thus there was no necessity and/or earthly reason to pass an order of detention against the appellant on 24/04/1998, the order was passed by the second respondent directing appellant to be detained. When the appellant came to know about the order, he immediately approached this Court for appropriate writ. direction and/or an order in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the said order passed by the District Magistrate, Baroda Respondent No. 2, being illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of his fundamental rights.

(3.) . Notice was issued by the learned single Judge, pursuant to which the respondents appeared. A preliminary objection was taken before the learned single Judge by the respondents that since appellant had not accepted the order of detention and had not surrendered, the petition filed by him was not maintainable. The learned single Judge heard the parties, perused the relevant file and observed that the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not be upheld. In the opinion of the learned single Judge, it could not be said on the facts and circumstances of the case, that the order was mala fide. The learned single Judge observed :