JHAMMAN LAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this habeas corpus writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner Jhamman Lal (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) challenges the validity of the detention order dated 4-11-1983 passed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh in exercise of the powers under section 3 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 198(0 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE facts as appearing from the petition, counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the parties are that the detenu is a license of a fair price shop. On 22-10-83 the Supply Inspector submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Koil, Aligarh to. the effect that the detenu should be asked to produce the documents i.e., relevant registers concerning the transaction of sugar at his fair price shop for the last month. Accordingly a notice was given to the detenu to produce those documents. THE detenu refused to accept that notice. According to the detenu, he had made a complaint against Shri R. P. Kulshrestha, Supply Inspector of Koil to the district authorities on 24-10-83 vide Annexure 1 to the petition. However, the receipt of this complaint in the office of the District Magistrate has been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Aligarh. At any rate, the fair price shop of the detenu was inspected on 29-10-83 by the Supply Inspector when the stock was found to be nill.No register was then made available by the detenu to the Supply Inspector. About this a detailed report was lodged by the Supply Inspector. On the basis of this report the ADM (Civil Supplies) Aligarh submitted his detailed report to the District Magistrate recommending the detention of the detenu under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) A perusal of the grounds of detention indicates that on one occasion earlier also, i.e., on 15-4-80, the licence of the detenu was suspended on account of serious irregularities but later on after imposition of a fine of Rs. 100/- was restored on 29-4-80. Again for the second time on 22-7-80 for similar irregularities his licence was suspended but after imposition of fine of Rs. 100/- it was again restored on 23-6-81.