MUNNA LAL AGARWAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Munna Lal Agarwal questions the validity of his detention under the provisions of SecJion 3 of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), authorised by the District Magistrate, Aligarh, vide his order dated 29th of October, 1983.

(2.) PETITIONER Munna Lal Agarwal is a licensee for carrying on the business of retail sale and purchase of coal (coal depot holder). On 29th of October, 1983 Sri D.C.G. Bhargava, Additional District Magistrate (Supplies) Aligarh, submitted a report to the District Magistrate Aligarh recommending that the petitioner should be detained under the provisions of the Act. The said report mentioned that on 26th of October, 1983 the Supply Inspector had lodged a first information report at Police Station. Lodh, District Aligarh to the effect that he, along with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, had checked truck No. UPB 3862 which was loaded with hard coke, near village Lodh in the presence of Wazir Chand and Yogendrapal Singh. According to the statement made by driver of the truck, Munnalal Agarwal, proprietor of "Munnalal Coal Depot" who was also present with him, was the owner of the hard coke and was carrying it to "Om Coal Depot", Kher. Neither the driver nor Munnalal Agarwal could produce the bill or invoice in respect of the coal that was being transported by them. Statement made by Surendra Singh also was to the effect that the said truck had been hired by Munnalal Agarwal for carrying coal to Kher. Thus Munnalal Agarwal was caught carrying 12 metric tons and 310 kilograms coal to Kher without making any entry in his records and with a view to effect its fictitious sale. He had thus contravened the conditions of the licence issued to him under the Coal Control Order, 1977 and committed an offence punishable under section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act. The report further mentioned that Subhash Chandra and Ghamandi Lal Gupta had in their written statements made on behalf of "Om Coal Depot" on 27th October, 1983 informed the supply Inspector that they did not enter into any transaction for purchase of coal with any party and that the alleged coal did not belong to them. According to the Coal Control Order, 1977, no coal depot holder could effect retail sale of coal to any person in excess of 10 quintals and that as per condition No. '3' of the licence in Form 'C' it was not open to the distribute coal at any place other than that indicated in the licence. It, therefore, appeared that Munnalal Agarwal was carrying the said coal to Kher with view to sell it in black-market and he was indulging in activity which was prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.

(3.) ALONGWITH the order of his detention, the petitioner was also served with the grounds on which the requisite satisfaction of the District Magistrate was said to have been founded. The grounds indicate that the District Magistrate had on the basis of facts disclosed in the report made by the Additional District Magistrate (Supplies) concluded that the petitioner was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to supplies of a commodity essential to the community on following grounds :- (1) That he was found carrying coal to Kher wiithout accounting for it in his records and with a view to effect its fictitious sale. He had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3,\7, Essential Commodities Act ; (2) That he was carrying the said coal to Kher with a view to sell it in black-market; and (3) that under the Coal Control Order no coal depot-holder could sell any coal outside the place of his business as shown in his licence and in quantity in excess of 10 quintals.