SUDAMA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Sudama Singh impugns the validity of his detention authorised under the order dated 19th June, 1981 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, in exercise of his powers under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No. 7 of 1980 ). Petitioner Sudama Singh had been Chairman of a Co-operative Society known as Kendriya Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Ltd. (Central Consumers Co-operative Society), Gorakhpur, from 18th May, 1978 to 14th May 1981. On 6th January, 1981 ten fair price shops were, for distribution of essential commodities under the Public Distribution Scheme, allotted to said Society. In due course the Society appointed ten persons, one at each of the ten shops, to work as Salesmen. It is said that on 6th May, 1981, the Executive Magis trate visited the Society for checking its stock and records. The checking made by the Executive Magistrate at the shop and godown of the Society situated at station Gorakhpur in presence of Nand Lal and Ram Prasad, employees of the Society, showed that certain stocks of essential commodities like vege table oil, cloth, Atta, rice, sugar, wheat etc. were present in five godowns adjoining the shop at Station Road, Gorakhpur. Neither Sri Sudama Singh Chairman of the Society nor its Secretary were present at the spot. It was found that stock registers, sales registers, receipt for daily sales, rate board and stock board were not available at the godown and no person authorised to sell the articles or to manage the sales was present there. The Executive Magistrate accordingly lodged a first information report at police station cantt. On the basis of which a case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against petitioner Sudama Singh, Narendra Kumar Srivastava, Secretary of the Society, Nand Lal and Ram Prasad Thapa. Remaining shops allotted to the Society were inspected by the Executive Magistrate on 7th May, 1981. The inspection made by the Executive Magistrate revealed that at none of these nine shops the records concerning distribution of goods like wheat, rice, sugar and kerosene oil, obtained by the Society from the public distribution, were available. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, suspended the Committees of Management of the Society, vide his order dated 14th May, 1981 and on 17th May, 1981 ha appointed Sri Ramhit Gupta as its Administrator. The petiti oner surrendered himself before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, in connection with the case under the Essential Commodities Act, on 27th May, 1981 and on the same day he was released on bail for a period of two months. After petitioner's application for bail for a further period was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate the petitioner obtained orders for" being released on bail from the Court of Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. Eventually, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, in exercise of his powers under Section 3 (1) of the U. P. Act No. 7 of 1980. passed the impugned order dated 19th, June 1981 and directed petitioner's detention. The grounds on which the petitioner has been directed to be detained were supplied to him on 21st June, 1981 (. Annexure 3 to the petition ). Its perusal shows that the District Magistrate felt the necessity of detaining the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community on the ground that the petitioner had been in the past contravening the provi sions contained in Clauses 3 and 23 of the U. P. Foodgrains and other Essen tial Articles Distribution Order 1977, Clause 3 of the U. P. Vanaspati Dealers Licencing Order and U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Price and Stock and Control of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1977. Whereas the material on the basis of which the District Magistrate thought that the petitioner had been contravening the provisions of Clauses 3 and 23 of the U. P. Foodgrains and other Essential Articles Distribution Order, 1977, has been indicated in paragraph numbered as 1 and that for contraven tion of U. P. Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order, U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Price and Stock and Control of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1977, is mentioned in paragraph numbered as 2 in Annexure 3 to the petition. It may also be mentioned here that while stating the material in paragraph 1 of Annexure 3 to petition, the District Magistrate has also referred to the checking of the shops and godowns by the Executive Magistrate on 6th May, 1981, leading to registration of a criminal case against the petitioner" under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's detention under the provisions of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (Act VII of 1980), hereinafter referred to as Act 7 of 1980, stands vitiated because of following reasons:- (1) Once on the basis of material gathered during the search made on 6th of May, 1981, a case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act had been registered and was pending, the District Magistrate was not competent to, on some facts, direct petitioner's detention under Act 7 of 1980. (2) The detaining authority did not make available to the petitioner copies of all documents referred to by it in the grounds for his detention. The petitioner has thus been deprived of an opportunity of making an effective representation, resulting in contravention of Article 22 of the Constitution. (3) That there was no material before the detaining authority on which it could possibly be satisfied that some of the grounds relied upon by it for concluding that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of supply of goods essential to the community existed. (4) The detaining authority had, while passing the impugned order, relied upon irrelevant material, and (5) The grounds for detention supplied to the petitioner being vague, prevented him from making an effective representation. In the case of Haradhan Shah v. The State of West Bengal and others (A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 214), the Supreme Court, after noting its earlier decisions observed thus:- "the principle which can be broadly stated are these. First, merely because a detenu is liable to be tried in a criminal Court for the commis sion of a criminal offence or to be proceeded against for preventing him from committing offences dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not, by itself, debar the Government from taking action for his detention under the Act. Second, the fact that the police arrests a person and later enlarges him on bail and initiates steps to prosecute him under the Code of Criminal Procedure and even lodges a first information report may be no bar against the District Magistrate issuing an order under the Preventive Detention Act. . . Fourth, the mere circumstance that a detention order is passed during the pen dency of the prosecution will not violate the order. . . . . . . . . " In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Supreme Court, it does not appear that there is any merit in the petitioner's first submission that pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner for contravention of the provisions of Section 317 of Essential Commodities Act, prevented the detaining authority from, while passing the impugned order, taking into consideration facts on which the said criminal case was based. In support of his second submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to paragraph 28 of the petition, specifying the particulars of as many as 12 documents relied upon in the grounds for his detention, it is stated that copies thereof have not been supplied to him by the detaining authority. The District Magistrate controverted the allegations made in paragraph 28 of the petition in paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit filed by him. He asserted that copies of all documents excepting those at serial Nos. 8, 10 and 11 in paragraph 28 of the petition had been supplied to the petitioner and signatures of the petitioner in token of having received all those docu ments are available on the record. The District Magistrate further averred that so far as the document mentioned at serial No. 8 was concerned, it did not exist and that it has not been taken into consideration in passing the detention order. So far as documents mentioned as serial Nos. 10 and 11 are concerned, they were one and the same and the order of detention nowhere refers to them. Moreover, copy of the first information report containing the requisite material had already been supplied to the petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the sworn statement of the District Magistrate in this regard. It is thus clear that all relevant documents, so as to enable the petiti oner to effectively represent his case, have been supplied to him. In view of the statement made by the District Magistrate in his counter-affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the second submission for impugning the validity of his detention. Coming now to the third submission, which has been seriously pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that as per grounds for petitioner's detention (Annexure 3 to the petition), satisfaction of the District Magistrate that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential com modities, like wheat, sugar, Ata, Vanaspati, exercise books and kerosene oil, was based on the ground that the petitioner had, in the past, been contraven ing following prouisions of law for the time being in force, relating to supply, distribution and trade and commerce in aforementioned commodities, which were essential to the community:- (1) Clauses 3 and 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrain and other Essential Articles, Distribution Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as Distribution Order. 1977), (2) Clause 3 of U. P. Vanaspati Dealers Licencing Order, 1969, and (3) U, P. Essential Commodities (Display of Price and Stock and Control of Supplies of Distribution) Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Price Display Order, 1977 ). The material on which the District Magistrate felt satisfied that the peti tioner has been contravening the provisions of Clauses 3 and 23 of the Distri bution Order, 1977, has been indicated in paragraph numbered as 1 in Annexure 3 to the petition, which may be summarised thus;- (1) Petitioner functioned as Chairman of a Central Consumers Co-operative Society, to which ten Government Fair Price Shops were allotted on 6th January, 1981, from 18th of May. 1978 to 14th of May, 1981. As per letter dated 19th February, 1981. from the Secretary of the Society, 10 salesmen had been appointed by the Society to function at the Fair Price Shops indicated against their respective names. (2) During the months of March and April considerable quantity of sugar, rice, kerosene oil and wheat was supplied to the Society for distri bution through the ten fair price shops allotted to it. (3) Information received from the Food Corporation and the Senior Marketing Inspector revealed that bulk of sugar and entire quantity of rice and wheat supplied to the Society for distribution during the months of March and April, 1981, was lifted from the Food Corporation and Government godowns by one Nandlal Gupta. (4) The Administrator of the Society informed the Addl. District Magistrate (Administration) that Nandlal Gupta was neither an employee of the Society nor had he been authorised by it to lift on its behalf any article supplied by the Government for distribution through the fair price shops belonging to the Society. (5) According to Cashier of the Society, the petitioner, who was the Chairman and the Secretary of the Society had been issuing oral orders to him for making payment for sugar, rice, wheat and kerosene oil lifted for distribution through fair price shops allotted to the Society. (6) The petitioner had personally verified the signatures of Nandlal Gupta to enable him to lift in the month of March, 1981, a part of the sugar on behalf of the Society meant to be distributed through the fair price shops. (7) On being required to produce the records of the fair price shops, seven out of ten appointed salesmen informed the authority that neither were the records available with them nor had they been working at the concerned fair price shops and that the Chairman and the Secretary of the Society have been getting all the work done through unknown persons. (8) During checking of nine shops on 7th May, 1981, records concer ning wheat, rice, sugar and kerosene oil supplied by the Government for public distribution were not available at any of these shops. According to the District Magistrate aforementioned facts made it clear that the petitioner did not get wheat, rice and sugar supplied by the Govern ment to the Society for public distribution, distributed through authorised salesmen and instead he got the same distributed in an irregular manner through Nandlal Gupta. These facts further snowed that no records in res pect of the goods and kerosene oil, supplied for public distribution, had been kept at any of the nine shops. Action of the petitioner in getting wheat, rice and sugar supplied by the Government to the Society for public distribution, through unathorised persons and in not maintaining the records at the nine fair price shops resulted in contravention of the provisions of Clauses 3 and 23 of the Distribution Order, 1977. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even if it be assumed that there was credible material in support of the allegations mentioned above, they do not make out any case for contravention either of Clause 3 or Clause 23 of the Distribution Order, 1977, and this ground relied upon by the District Magistrate for detaining the petitioner cannot be said to exist. Clause 3 of the Distribution Order, 1977, runs thus;- "no person other than an authorised retail distributor shall sell any of the Government foodgrains or any other essential article supplied by the Government for distribution under this Order or any other Order," The expression, "authorised retail distributor", has been defined in Clause 2 (b) of the Order as meaning a person appointed as agent (retail) by the District Magistrate, City Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, for sale of Government foodgrains and other essential articles. A contravention of Clause 3 can take place only if a person other than the authorised retail distributor effects the sale either of Government food-grain or of other essential article, which is supplied by the Government, for distribution. Where the sale of such foodgrain or article is effected by the authorised retail dealer, no question of contravention of Clause 3 aforesaid can possibly arise. If, while so selling the foodgrain or other essential article, the authorised retail dealer contravenes any statutory provision or some legally enforceable order, he may become liable for contravention of some other provisions but then he cannot be said to contravene Clause 3 of the Distribution Order, 1977. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the Central Consumers Co operative Society, to which various articles, like wheat, rice, sugar, kerosene oil, were supplied from Government and Food Corporation godowns, was the 'auhorised retail distributor; as defined by Clause 2 of the Distribution Order, 1977. In substance the allegations made in the grounds for petitioner's deten tion in this regard is that while acting as Chairman of the Society, he got the wheat, sugar, rice and kerosene oil sold through an unauthorised man Sri Nandlal Gupta who was not an employee of the Society, instead of getting the same sold through authorised salesmen. In other words, the action of the petitioner in getting the goods sold would not have resulted in any contra vention of Clause 3 of the Distribution Order, 1977 if such sale had been effected through various salesman appointed by the Society. Viewed in this light what the allegations made against the petitioner in this connection amount to is that even though wheat, sugar, rice and kerosene oil have been sold by the Society, the petitioner contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of the Distribution Order, 1977, as he got the same sold through a person who was not the salesman appointed by the Society. As already explained, in case the concerned sales of Government food-grains and other essential articles had been effected by the Society, which, admittedly, was an authorised retail distributor, no question of contravention of Clause 3 of the Distribution Order, 1977, can possibly arise. If the Society sold the foodgrains etc. through Nandlal Gupta who had not been legally authorised either to lift the foodgrain or to sell the same on behalf of the Society, the Society might be guilty of some provision other than that contained in Clause 1 of the Distribution Order, 1977. Contravention in this regard of any provision other than that of Clause 3 of the Distribution Order, 1977, has not been made the basis for detaining the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents argued that as the concerned articles have been sold by unauthorised persons, such sale could not be treated as a sale made by the society itself. They would be the sales made by the unauthorised persons themselves. As the petitioner, who was the Chairman of the Society actively connived at such sales made by the unauthorised persons, he would on the basis of provision contained in Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, be taken to have contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of the Distribution Order. 1977. We are unable to accept this submission. In case the objectionable sales were not the sales made by the Society but were sales effected by unauthorised persons, it will be such unauthorised persons who effected the sales, and not the Co-operative Society, which would be guilty of contravening the provisions of Clause 3 of the order. Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act makes the person In charge respon sible for the conduct of the business of a corporate body as well as its such Director, Manager, Secretary or other Officer who consent or connive at or whose neglect leads to a contravention by the corporate body, punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, also liable to be proceeded against and to be punished accordingly. This section comes into play only when there has been some contravention by a corporate body which can be dealt with under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. It has no application to a case where the contravention of the nature contemplated by the Essential Com modities Act is by an individual. We are accordingly of opinion that even if some unauthorised persons have sold the foodgrains etc. , meant to be distribut ed by the Society with petitioner's consent or connivance, it cannot be said that the petitioner can be made liable for contravention of Clause 3 of the Distribution Order, 1977, with the aid of Section 10 of the Essential Commodi ties Act. Learned Government Advocate next submitted that the real import of the allegations contained in the grounds supplied to the petitioner with regard to contravention of Clause 3 of the Distribution Order, 1977, was that it was the petitioner, who had misappropriated the Government foodgrains etc. , supplied to the Society for distribution through fair price shops and he had himself sold the same through the agency of Nandlal Gupta. As admittedly, the petitioner was not an authorised retail distributor, he would become liable for contravention of Clause 3 of the Distribution Order, 1977. We find no merit in this submission. As already explained, the real import of the allegations contained in the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner was that there had been contravention of Clause 3 of the Order inasmuch as the Society got the foodgrains etc. supplied to it for distribution through the fair price shops, sold through unauthorised persons instead of through authorised salesmen. This conclusion is further fortified by follo wing allegations made in paragraphs 11 and 13 of the counter- affidavit; "paragraph 11-In reply to the averments made in paras 17, 18 and 19 it is stated that although technically it may be correct that the Secretary as Chief Executive Officer is responsible for the day to day busi ness and activities of the Society, Section 30 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, merely confers on the Chairman the power to control, direct and supervise the affairs and business of the Society. The deponent has no reason to disbelieve the report given by the Cashier about his getting instructions from the Chairman through Sudama Singh and further deponent had reason to believe that Sri Nandlal Gupta, who is not a servant of the Society, was authorised by Sri Sudama Singh to lift the commodities on behalf of the Society. Further, seven out of tern salesmen reported to have been appointed as such by the Society have also reported that under instructions of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Society, the business was actually being done by some other un authorised persons. As such, therefore, it is wrong to say that the petitioner did not do anything contrary to the provisions of law. . . . . " "paragraph 13-That in reply to the averments made in para 24 of the petition it is stated that the petitioner actually authorised one Sri Nandlal Quota to lift the commodities on behalf of the Society and as such it is wrong to say that he did not authorise any outsider to assist him in the discharge of his duties. . . . . . " It thus appears that it is detaining authority's own case that while get ting the sale transacted through unauthorised persons, the petitioner was carry ing on the business of the society and that the concerned articles were not being sold by him on his own account. In the result, we are of opinion that there was no material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it could feel satisfied that the petiti oner had contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of the Distribution Order, 1977. Material indicated in the grounds of petitioner's detention and relied upon by the detaining authoritv in so far as contravention by the petitioner, of the provisions contained in Clause 23 of the Distribution Order, 1977, which reads thus:- "clause 23-Maintenance of Accounts etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Every authorized retail distributor shall maintain in such form and manner as District, Magistrate may direct, an account of all purchases, sales and transactions, made by him of any foodgrains or other essential articles. He shall also furnish information, returns, statements and reports as he may be requir ed to furnish by the District Magistrate or under an order of the State Government made under the Act. " is concerned merely is that when on 7th May. 1981. nine out of ten fair price shops allotted to the Society were checked by the Executive Magistrate, the records concerning distribution of Essential Commodities, like wheat, rice, sugar and kerosene oil. supplied to the Society for public distribution through those shops, were not found at those shops. A persual of Clause 23 shows that it can be contravened by an authoris ed retail distributor either (1) if he does not maintain, in such form and manner as the District Magistrate may direct, an account of all purchases, sales and transactions made by him of foodgrains or essential commodity or (2) if on being so required by the District Magistrate, he fails to furnish the informa tion, return, statements or reports called for from him. In this case the material communicated to the petitioner merely shows that on a particular date when nine fair price shops were inspected by the Executive Magistrate, records concerning distribution of essential commodities supplied to the Society for public distribution were not kept at those nine shops. All that Clause 23 obliges an authorised dealer to do is to maintain in such form and manner as the District Magistrate may require, records of purchases, sales and transactions made by him of the commodities supplied to him for public distribution. It does not oblige the authorised retail dealer to necessarily maintain or keep such records at the place from where actual distribution of the commodities takes place. There is nothing in the grounds supplied to the petitioner to show that such records had in fact not been maintained by the Society which in this case was the authorised dealer and that either it was the duty of the petitioner as its Chairman to maintain such records or that such non-mainte nance of records was due to some negligence on the part of the petitioner or was with his consent or connivance. The grouads supplied to the petitioner also did not indicate that the detaining authority had, at any time, required the petitioner, who was Chairman of the Society (authorised retail distri butor), to produce either the account books of the Society relating to distri bution of essential commodities supplied to it for public distribution, or to furnish any other information, return, statement or report. It thus appears that on the material so communicated it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed either of the two lapses which lead to contravention of the provi sions of Clause 23 of the Distribution Order, 1977. This ground for petitioner's detention also does not appear to be backed up by relevant material. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that as a Chairman, it was not his duty either to maintain accounts or to furnish to the District Magistrate any information on behalf of the Society. It was the Secretary of the Society, who was responsible for maintaining the accounts and furnishing information on behalf of the Society. In the circumstances, if at all, it was the Secretary of the Society who alone could be made liable for the contravention of Clause 23 of the Distribution Order, 1977. Accor dingly, the petitioner cannot, on the basis of the material communicated to him, be paid to have contravened the provisions of Clause 23 of the Distribution Order, 1977. However, in the view which we are taking it is not necessary for us to deal with or to express any opinion on this submission made by the learned counsel. So far as contravention by the petitioner, of the provisions contained in the Vanaspati Dealers Licencing Order, 1969, and the Price Display Order, 1977, is concerned, necessary material for the same has been indicated in para graph 2 of the grounds served on the petitioner. The material indicates that when on 6th of May, 1981, the Executive Magistrate inspected one of the ten fair price shops (namely, that located at Station Road, Gorakhpur) allotted to the Society, he found considerable quantity of Vannspati, cloth, exercise book, rice, Ata and sugar, present in six godowns adjoining the said shop. These six godowns did not belong to the Society and that the Vanaspati Ghee found therein also did not belong to the Society. The material further indicat ed that the said godowns belonged to the petitioner who was in actual control of the commodities found there. The petitioner did not possess any license for dealing in Vanaspati. At the time of inspection, no stock register, sales register, daily sales receipts, price lists and stock board were found either at the shop belonging to the Society or in any of five rooms or godowns attached thereto. It is not disputed that the petitioner does not hold licence under the Vanaspati Dealers Licencing Order, 1977, for dealing in Vanaspati. As on the material available to him the detaining authority could feel satisfied that the petitioner was dealing in Vanaspati found in the godowns and that he was doing so without obtaining a licence under the Vanaspati Dealers Licencing Order, 1977, it cannot be said that the detaining authority committed any mistake in taking this ground into consideration while making an order for petitioner's detention. Coming now to the allegations regarding contravention of the provi sions of the Price Display Order, 1977, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Clause 4 thereof, relevant portion of which runs thus:- "4. Exhibition of Price List and Stock by retailer- (1) Every retailer shall before the commencement of his business on any day exhibit at the entrance or some other prominent place of his business premises, the retail price list of different classes, varieties of scheduled commodities actually held in stock by him for sale as fixed or approved by the Central or State Government, if any or as fixed by the manufacturer, producer or distributor and where no such price is fixed or approved by the Govern ment or fixed by the manufacturer, or producer, or distributor, the price (inclusive of all taxes) at which the scheduled commodity is offered for sale by the retailer. . . . . . . . . " Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before a retailer, who has been defined in Clause 2 (b) as a person engaged in the business of pur chase, sale or storage or sale of any scheduled commodity by retail including his representative or agent, can be said to have contravened the provisions of Clause 4 of the Price Display Order mentioned above, there must be material to show that the list contemplated by Clause 4 had not been displayed by the retailer at his business premises. Even if it be taken that the concerned goods were, on 6th of May, 1981. found in the godowns as mentioned in paragraph 2 of Annexure 3 and those goods belonged to the patitioner, it could not be said that the said godowns were the place of petitioner's business in the sense that the petitioner had been using that place for retail sales of those commodities. There was no evidence to show that the petitioner even conducted any sale from those godowns. If the petitioner was selling the goods from some other place, it would be that other place which would be the place of his business. Merely because the detaining authority did not find the price list contemplated by Clause 4 displayed at the godowns where the goods were stored, it did not mean that the said list had not been displayed at the place from where the petitioner was actually transacting his business of retail sale. The shop adjoin ing the godowns where the price list had not been displayed by the petitioner was not his personal shop. It was the shop belonging to the Society of which the petitioner was the Chairman. It was, if at all, the place of Society's business and not that of the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have contravened the provisions of Clause 4 of the Order by not displaying the price list of the articles found in the godowns at the shop. Having given our careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel we find that it is not well founded. It is not disputed that in case the goods found present in the six godowns on 6th of May, 1981, belonged to the petitioner and the same had been stored for sale the petitioner would be guilty of contravening the provisions of Clause 4 of the Price Display Order if such godowns were petitioner's place of business within the meaning of Clause 4. In this case, material has been brought on record to show that none of the six godowns which adjoined the fair price shop belonging to the Society, located at the Station Road, Gorakhpur, had been hired by the Society. The electric connection for those godowns stood in the name of petitioner. In one of the godowns there was sometime back a telephone con nection which stood in the name of the petitioner. These facts could provide the basis for the District Magistrates feeling that the said godowns and the commodities stored therein belonged to the petitioner. The quantity in which those foodgrains etc. , had been stored in the godowns could lead the District Magistrate to believe that the same had been stored there for purpose of sale. As no price list, as contemplated by Clause 4 was found to have been displayed at any of the six godowns, the detaining authority could come to the conclusion that the petitioner had been contravening the provisions of Clause 4 of the said Order, if there was any material before it on the basis of which it could feel that the petitioner had been using that place for conducting sales. In our opinion, in a case where stock of essential commodities is found to be stored at a place in such quantity as has beed found in the present case (leading to an inference that the same had been stored for sale), the detaining authority can, in absence of any claim made by the person to whom such goods belonged, presume and proceed on the footing that the goods were intended to be sold in retail from the very same place where they were found to be stored. It is not the petitioner's case that he is conducting the sale of the articles from any place other than the place where the same were found to be stored. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the conclusion of the District Magistrate that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Clause 4 of the Price Display Order inasmuch as he did not display the list contemplated by that clause at the godowns was based on no material. We are, accordingly, not impressed by the petitioner's submission that there was no material in support of the ground that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Clause 4 of the Price Display Order, 1977. Upshot of aforesaid discussion is that whereas petitioner's detention was based on four, grounds viz. , that he had, in the past, been contravening Clauses 3 and 23 of the Distribution Order, 1977, Clause 3 of the Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order and Clause 4 of the Price Display Order there was material on the basis of which the District Magistrate could feel satisfied that he had contravened the provisions of Vanaspati Dealers Licensing Order 1969 and Clause 4 of the Price Display Order, 1977, there was no material on the basis of which he could feel satisfied that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Clauses 3 and 23 of the Distribution Order, 1977. It is now settled law that there the satisfaction of the detaining authority that it is neces sary to detain a person with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the Society, under a law relating to preventive detention, is based on a number of grounds, and it is found that there is no material to support existence of some of those grounds, the entire detention order is rendered invalid. As in this case we have found that there was no material in support of two of the four grounds on which the District Magistrate felt satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance and supplies of essential commodities, the order for petitioner's detention impugned in this case is rendered invalid and the petition deserves to be allowed. In the aforesaid view of the matter we do not think it necessary to deal with or consider the fourth and fifth submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Before parting with this case we may observe that if what has been stated in Annexure 3 to the writ petition to justify passing of the order for petitioner's detention be true, the petitioner certainly is an anti-social element who deserves to be strictly dealt with under the law. However, even the detention of such a person can be countenanced only if the same has been made in accordance with the provisions laid down in the concerned law relating to preventive detention. As in this case we find that the requisite satisfaction of the District Magistrate for coming to the conclu sion that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance and supplies of essen tial commodities was based on four grounds, two of which were not backed by any material, we have no option but to hold that petitioner's detention is rendered illegal. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 19th of June, 1981, passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner from custody forth with, unless wanted in connection with any other case. .