UMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.

(2.) THE petitioner is detained in District Jail Aligarh under the order of the District Magistrate Aligarh dated 30-11-1983 passed under Sec. 3(2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodites essential to the community. THE petitioner was arrested on 2-1-1984 and the aforesaid order was served on him on that day along with the grounds of detention. THE petitioner made an application for the supply of certain documents on 19-1-1984, which was rejected by the District Magistrate on the same day. THE petitioner submitted his representation to the Superintendent, District Jail, Aligarh on 22- 1-1984. It was received by the District Magistrate, Aligarh on 23-1-1984 and was sent by him to the State Government on 24-1-1984. It was rejected by the State Government on 4-2-1984.

(3.) IT was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detaining authority did not supply the documents, which were demanded by the petitioner in his application dated 19-1-1984, which were necessary for making his representation. IT appears that all the documents referred to in the grounds of detention and demanded by the petitioner were supplied to him except the agreement entered into by him in 1980-81 and copies of his three licences. In our opinion, the detaining authority is only required to supply those documents, which were before it when it passed the order of detention as the order of detention is based only on those documents. The detainig authority , in our view is not required to supply documents, which were not before it when it passed the order of detention, although they may have been referred to in some of the documents, which were before it when it passed the detention order. IT is well settled that the detenu is entitled to be furnished with not only the grounds of detention but also the documents and material on which those grounds are based. IT is obvious that the grounds of detention are based only on the material that is before the detaining authority. Although in that material there may be a reference to some other documents, but the detenu is not entitled to get a copy of those documents as they were not before the detaining authority when it passed the order of detention. In the present case, the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate shows that all the relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. We have also examined the record of the District Magistrate relating to the case of the petitioner and found that copies of all the documents that were before the District Magistrate when he passed the order of detention against the petitioner were supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. The record also showed that a copy of the agreement entered into by the petitioner in 1980-81 and copies of the three licences of the petitioner were not before the District Magistrate when he passed the detention order against the petitioner. He was, therefore, not required to supply these documents to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. In our opinion, the non-supply of these documents has not affected his right under Article 22 (5) or the Constitution of India to make an effective representation against the grounds of his detention.