S POONKOL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petitions fall under two categories.

(2.) THE petitioners in the batch of writ petitions are apprehending that order of detention may be passed by the competent authority under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter called as the 'act' ). According to the petitioners they have been proceeded against for dealing with paddy/rice issued under Public Distribution System in violation of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order 1982 (hereinafter called as '1982 Order') which violations are punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as 'ec Act' ).

(3.) THE contention of the petitioners is that in the government of India (Ministry of Agriculture and irrigations, Department of Food) No. GSR 800 dated 09. 06. 1978, the Central Government has delegated the powers to the State Governments to make orders. In exercise of the said power, the Government of Tamil Nadu has made the 1982 order. While so, the Government of India has passed an order viz. , Removal of Licensing Requirements on Specified food Stuff Order 2002 (hereinafter called as '2002 Order')which totally frees various foods stuff, including paddy and rice from all controls and restrictions etc. Rule 4 of the 2002 Order contains a non-abstante clause stating that this order will have effect notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force. Rule 5 of the 2002 Order states that issue of any order by the State Government under powers delegated in GSR 452 (E)dated 25. 10. 1972 and GSR 800 dated 09. 06. 1978 for regulating by licenses, permit or otherwise, the storage, transport etc. , of any of the commodities specified in Clause 3 shall require the prior concurrence of the Central Government. According to the petitioners the State Government has not obtained the prior concurrence of the Central Government and therefore the persons who have been arrested and dealt with on the assumption that they have contravened the 1982 Order cannot be detained under the Act. Further it is the case of the petitioners that none of the persons have been dealt with under the 2002 Order, but have been dealt with only under 1982 order and hence they cannot be detained under the act.