ISMAIL NASRUDDIN SHAIKH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 14 th October 2012 passed by the first Respondent directing him to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ( hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The said order has been passed in purported exercise of powers conferred by SubSection (1) read with Subclause (b) of Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the said Act.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner made a representation dated 18 th October 2012 through his Advocate to the Central Government. The said representation was sent by Speed Post on 19 th October 2012. He submitted that in the Petition, a contention has been raised that the said representation has not been considered. He pointed out what is stated in the reply filed by the Under Secretary of the Department of Consumer Affairs of the Central Government. He pointed out that the communication of rejection of the representation was allegedly made by the telegram dated 29 th November 2012. He urged that there is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay in considering the representation. On this point, he placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Rupesh Kantilal Savla v. State of Gujarat & Others, 2000 SCC(Cri) 1203 and K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. AbdulKhader v. Union of India and Others, 1991 SCC(Cri) 613

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited our attention to the grounds of detention served in accordance with Section 8 of the said Act to the Petitioner. He pointed out that the allegation made against the Petitioner is that he is indulged in illegal activities under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 of black marketing of blue kerosene which is distributed only through the Public Distribution System. He pointed out that in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has relied upon the alleged seizure of three plastic drums out of which two drums were containing 35 liters of blue kerosene and third one was containing 15 liters of blue kerosene. He submitted that a sample of small quantity was drawn from the seized liquid. He submitted that the report of the Chemical Analyser was not placed before the detaining authority and in fact, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was not even obtained. He submitted that the report was a vital document which could have affected the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. He invited our attention to the relevant parts of the reply filed by the detaining authority. On this point, he relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of District Collector, Ananthapur & Another v. V. Laxmanna, 2005 SCC(Cri) 882 and a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Vinod Subhas Chavan v. Himmatrao Deshbhartar & Others., 2013 AllMR(Cri) 157