NAVNITBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Partner in Nav Bharat LPG Bottling Company situated at Gadhada, Taluka Himmatnagar, Dist. Sabarkantha. He came to be detained by an order dated 7/09/1999 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Gujarat in exercise of powers u/s 3[1] of the Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 [hereinafter referred to as `the PBM Act', for short]. The grounds of detention of even date furnished to the detenue indicate that the detaining authority took into consideration the facts that were revealed during the inspection raid indicating commission of breach of the Control Order of 1977 and several other irregularities and illegalities in the stock of LPG.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the order of detention on numerous grounds. The main grounds are that there is a delay in passing the order that there is delay on part of the Central Government in deciding the representations sent by the detenue himself and his lawyer, and that the detaining authority has not recorded any subjective satisfaction regarding the activities being carried out by the petitioner for personal gain. It has been contended that the Central Government had called for parawise comments from the State Government which was not required to be done as the Central Government already had the report of the State Government submitted u/s 3[4] of the PBM Act and lastly, it is stated that the parawise remarks have been mechanically called for without any application of mind by the authority concerned. The last contention is that legible documents were not supplied to the detenue at the time of detention. The detenue had, by a representation, requested for supply of legible copies of these documents and the same has not been supplied.

(3.) Mr.Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, while elaborating the points and contentions raised in the petition, submitted that the inspection raid was carried out on 25/05/1999, whereas the order of detention came to be passed on 7/09/1999. Therefore, there is a delay of nearly 3 months and 2 weeks. He submitted that, therefore, the subjective satisfaction about immediate necessity of detaining the petitioner, cannot be said to be genuine. Mr. Thakkar submitted further that the Government machinery has not acted quickly and without delay. He submitted that the representation dated 30/09/1999 was received by the Government on 1/10/1999 and the same has been decided by the Central Government on 1 4/10/1999. Another representation of the same date made by the petitioner himself was received by the Central Government on 5/10/1999 and the same came to be decided on 22/10/1999. Therefore, there is a delay in deciding both the representations. Mr.Thakkar submitted that, so far as the second representation made by the petitioner himself is concerned, it was made in Gujarati language. The Central Government called for a translated version and parawise remarks on 5/10/1999 and the same was received by the Central Government on 18th October 1999. The State Government has, therefore, consumed unusually long time for furnishing translated version and parawise remarks to the Central Government. The delay has remained unexplained and therefore, prejudice is caused to the detenue.