KIRITBHAI MANILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the detention order dated 2.9.1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara, under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, and has prayed for quashing of the said order and his immediate release from illegal detention.

(2.) From the grounds of detention it appears that the petitioner was running two fair price shops, one in the name of Government approved fair price shop No.115, Shiyapura, Raopura, Vadodara city and other in the name of Tarsali Co.Operative Credit Society, shop No.189, Indrapuri Complex, Vadodara. Grave irregularities were found in the aforesaid fair price shops. Inquiry was held on 29.4.1998. The petitioner was asked to open his shop upto 5.00 p.m. There was allegation that he was not regularly opening his shop and was harassing the customers. The petitioner was asked to produce record for inspection. He did not appear. By letter dated 29.4.1998 he was again asked to produce record, but he did not do so in relation to shop No.115. Inspection was conducted on 27.5.1998 and 17.8.1998 at the Government approved fair price shop No.115 run by the petitioner. Cross checking was made with record, sale bills, stock, etc. It was found that during January, 1998 to August 1998 the petitioner unlawfully disposed of 677 ltrs. of kerosene and huge quantity of wheat, rice, sugar, etc. mentioned in Para : 8 of the grounds of detention. It was also found that stock meant for public distribution system was disposed of in black market by the petitioner which was prima facie made out from sale bills, statements of card holders, original ration cards and details of cancelled ration cards. Other similar activities of the petitioner have been high-lighted in the grounds of detention to show in what manner he entered in repeated black marketing activities and earned huge profit by selling essential commodities meant for public distribution system in the market secretly. Alternative remedies were considered by the Detaining Authority who found that in past also such irregularities were found in the fair price shop of the petitioner and his licence was cancelled. This was in respect of shop situated at Raopura. The Bail bonds were demanded and in persuance of bond the licence was continued. Finding that alternative remedies were ineffective the impugned order of detention was passed.

(3.) This detention order has been challenged in the course of arguments on six grounds, but in the midst of arguments two grounds were not pressed.