SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJESHWAR Singh, J. District Magistrate, Pilibhit on 13-8-1987 passed and order under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Main tenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 detention ordering of Sudhir Kumar as he laws satisfied that it was necessary to do so to prevent Sudhir Kumar from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Feeling aggrieved Sudhir Kumar has filed the present habeas corpus petition praying that he should be set at liberty and the orders passed against him by the District Magistrate be quashed.

(2.) IT appears from the record that at the Police Station Pooranpur the Station Officer received an information on 7-7-1987 at about 9 or 10 a. m. that Cooking Gas is in shortage and taking advantage of it Sudhir Kumar petitioner and his brother Pradip Kumar bring Cooking Gas Cylinders from Bareilly and sell them at Pooranpur at an excessive price, even though, there is no agency of Cooking Gas in Pooranpur. IT was further informed that these to persons had bi ought a truck full of Cooking Gas Cylinders and the Gas Cylinders were being sod. So the Sub-Inspector with necessary staff made a raid. They reached near the house of Pradip Kumar and saw the truck No. 6211. They hid themselves behind the truck and heard that one person was asking for a cylinder full of gas and Pradip Kumar demanded Rs. 120 for it. That person paid Rs. 120 and Pradip Kumar was going to hand-over cylinder to him. Being convinced about the information received they tried to arrest the persons. Pradip Kumar was arrested at the spot along with truck owner and truck driver but petitioner Sudhir Kumar was able to escape and the person who had come to purchase a cylinder, also could not be caught. On search Rs. 120 were recovered from Pradip Kumar. Besides this 21 cylinders filled up with gas and 7 empty cylinders were also recovered. These persons could not show any licence or other documents regarding cylinders, so they were arrested and a case was registered against them under Essential Commodities Act as well as Explosives Act. The matter was, thereafter reported to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate after considering the matter said that the petitioner who was in jail under the Essential Commodities Act and Explosives Act, he had applied for bail and there was every likelihood that he would be released on bail. He further expressed his satisfaction that the petitioner would persist in this act and if he was released he would act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities to the public. So he passed the detention order which is being impugned in this petition. The grounds on which it is being impugned are several and it is said that the entire story is con cocted. He has been implicated on account of malice and the orders passed by District Magistrate is invalid. IT has also been said that petitioner made a representation and it was disposed of with undue delay.

(3.) IT was argued that entire action is based on malice and this is because the petitioner made complaints against police and the police Sub-Inspector was also transferred on his report. In suport of his allegation he filed copies of some resolutions by some organisations such as Bar Association, Vyapar Mandal, Congress Committee (I) etc. Some letters of one Member of Parlia ment were also filed wherein it was said that petitioner was Congress (I) worker and police wanted to implicate him. There is not affidavit of these persons, who passed the resolution or wrote the letter. Further, there is the fact that 21 filled gas cylinders and 7 empty cylinders were seized by the police. So many cylinders could not be planted and this is a pointer towards the fact that it could not be said that the entire matter has been concocted out of malice. So malice is not proved.