RAM KISHAN ALIAS MUNNA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged legality of his continued detention in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate, Moradabad dated 23-4-1985.

(2.) THE District Magistrate, Moradabad, was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him (the petitioner) from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of a commodity essential to the community. Accordingly, he passed the order dated 23-4-1985 in the exercise of his powers under section 3 (2) of the [Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the petitioner's detention. In pursuance to that order the petitioner was arrested and he is under going detention in jail. THE grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner' indicate that on .5-4-1985 at about 4.00 p. m. the police raided the premises of Satish Chandra's Karkhana in the town of Chandausi, the raiding party found 5 drums of kerosene oil loaded in a THEla. THE petitioner and Rajiv were present there and they were getting the drums unloaded from the THEla on seeing the raiding party, the petitioner fled away, while Rajiv remained on the spot. On inquiry made by the raiding party, Rajiv stated that he had no licence with him and that kerosene oil belonged to the petitioner who carried on the business of storage and sale of kerosene oil illegally and the petitioner had brought kerosene oil for keeping the same in the Karkhana of bis father. THE ground further states that the petitioner had no licence, he contravened provisions of the U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962 and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. THE raiding party seized seven drums of kerosene oil and registered a case against the petitioner under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Since the petitioner illegally stored the kerosene oil which was an essential commodity for the benefit of the community, the petitioner's action was prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of an essential commodity. THE ground of detention supplied to the petitioner further stated that on the aforesaid facts the District Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner was likely to indulge into similar activities prejudicial to the 'maintenance of supply of essential commodities and as such it was necessary to detain him.

(3.) IN view of the above discussion, we allow the petition and direct the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in some other case. Petition allowed.