SUMATHI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to an order of the second respondent made in Cr.M.P.No.1/B.M/2008(E4), dated 28.01.2008, branding one Saravanan, the brother of the petitioner, as Black Marketeer and detaining him under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Central Act 7 of 1980).

(2.) THE Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the State. THE affidavit filed in support of the petition and also the counter affidavit are also perused.

(3.) THE learned counsel would further add that page 4 of the order under challenge would reveal that the sample of kerosene was sent to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai for tests and the report received from the testing laboratory of Indian Oil Corporation, Korukkupet, Chennai revealed that the samples taken for quality analysis confirmed that it matches with the Public Distribution System kerosene. THE learned counsel took the court to the report of analysis as found in page 45 of the Booklet and submit that it does not reveal anything either to state or to indicate that the quality analysis confirmed that it matches with public distribution system kerosene and hence the order of the Authority as if the report reads so was not correct. Under these circumstances, it canot be termed as material for the purpose of coming to subjective satisfaction and hence the order under challenge has got to be set aside.