LAWS(GJH)-1999-3-40

BACHUBHAI POPATLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On March 04, 1999
BACHUBHAI POPATLAL PATEL Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Through this petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 5-9- 1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Mehsana, under Sec. 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, and has prayed that the aforesaid detention order be quashed and he be released from illegal detention.

(2.) . Brief facts are that the petitioner is holding Government approved fair price shop in the name of Patel Bachubhai Popatlal, Nagalpur village in Mehsana District, and is carrying on trade of the stock of food-grain, sugar, wheat, rice, edible oil and kerosene through fair price shop. The Mamlatdar, Mehsana made casual inspection of fair price shop on 19-8-1998 and it was found that the petitioner had sold in black market seven quintal of levy sugar directly out of 12 quintal levy sugar lifted through Bill No. 1554 dated 19-8-1998. Thereafter, Supply Inspector, Mehsana made detailed inspection for the period between 25-8-1998 on 31-8-1998. It was found that the petitioner was indulging in black marketing activity and profiteering activities in distribution and supply of essential commodities such as levy sugar, wheat, rice and palmolin oil meant for public distribution system. The details of irregularities in the manner in which the black marketing activity was continued and committed by the petitioner are given in the grounds of detention. In para 10 of the grounds of detention black marketing activities of the petitioner in kerosene were also highlighted inasmuch as against fixed price of Rs. 2.70 ps. per litre the petitioner was charging Rs. 15.00 for five ltrs. of kerosene. Further details regarding this activity are also indicated clearly in the grounds of detention. Alternative remedies were considered which were found to be inefficacious. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention was passed.

(3.) . The detention order has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on various grounds.