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 Section 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 commodities 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 aim to the State Government on 24/1/1984. It was rejected by the State Government on 4/1/1984.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the representation of the petitioner was not placed before the Advisory Board by the State Government within three weeks from the date of his detention as required by Section 10 of the Act. From an examination of the record of the District Magistrate it appeared that the representation of the petitioner was received by the Superintendent District Jail, Aligarh on the evening of 22/1/1984, which was a Sunday. It was sent by him to the District Magistrate on the nest day (23/1/1984). According to the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate the representation of the petitioner could not be sent from Aligarh on 23/1/1984 so as to be placed before the Advisory Board by 5 P. M. on that day (23/1/1984). It was, therefore, sent from Aligarh to the State Government by the District Magistrate on 24/1/1984 along with his comments. It thus appears that the representation of the petitioner was not received by the District Magistrate from the Superintendent District Jail, Aligarh on 23.1.1984 in time so that it could be sent to Lucknow on that day by the trains which connect Aligarh with Lucknow so as to reach the Advisory Board by 5 P.M. on that day. The explanation furnished by the District Magistrate, Aligarh for not sending it on 23/1/1984 is thus satisfactory. The representation of the petitioner was admittedly submitted by him 20 days after his arrest on 22/1/1984. In these circumstances, it was not possible for the District Magistrate to comply with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. The detention of the petitioner cannot, therefore, be held to be illegal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act.