SHAKIEMOHAMED Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 12. 09. 2007, whereby, his brother by name Safiyulla has been detained as 'black Marketer' as contemplated under the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980 ).

(2.) THE ground on which the detention order came to be passed is that on 08. 09. 2007, at 6 A. M. , the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C. I. D. , Special Tahsildar, Flying Squad, Krishnagiri, Special Revenue Inspector, Flying Squad, Krishnagiri and the police party were conducting vehicle check near Nalanda School, Krishnagiri, regarding illegal transportation of essential commodities and they stopped a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-45 E-6899 and found 300 bags of P. D. S. rice being transported therein illegally. The Inspector of police arrested the detenu, the owner of the rice and also the Driver and Cleaner of the Lorry. The confession statement of the detenu revealed that he used to purchase PDS rice, hoard the same at small godowns, transport it to Karnataka and derive small benefits therefrom. The Inspector arrested the detenu, seized the contraband as well as the lorry and registered a case against the detenu in Civil Supplies CID Cr. No. 488 of 2007 for offences under Section 6 (4) of TNSC (RDCS) of 1982 read with 7 (i) (a) (ii) of EC Act, 1955. The detaining authority, on arriving at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities to the public, passed the impugned order of detention as against the detenu, branding him as 'black Marketer'.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner at the foremost, by pointing out that the Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention has stated that the detenu was heard in person by the Detaining Authority on 10. 09. 2007 and, in the enquiry, the allegations made against him was found to be true; would submit that the Detaining Authority has failed to serve documents relating to such enquiry, which are very vital in nature. That being so, non-furnishing of documents vital in nature prejudiced the detenu to a great extent as he was prevented from making an effective representation.