RAJENDRA MANSUKHLAL SHAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged his detention pursuant to an order dated January 8, 1988, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay; under section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on his being satisfied that it is necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.

(2.) The order of detention is dated January 8, 1988, and was served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention the same day. The petitioner has challenged his detention on several grounds in the petition. One of the grounds on which the petitioner has challenged his detention is that the mention of the period of his detention in the order of detention dated January 8, 1988, vitiates the order of detention. Since in our view the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on this ground alone, it is necessary for us to consider the other grounds on which the petitioner has challenged his detention as illegal. The order of his detention passed by the Commissioner of Police on January 8, 1988, runs thus :

(3.) It is urged by Mr. Sardar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that having regard to the provisions of section 3 as also the Scheme of the Act, the mention of the period of six months as the period of detention in the impugned order of detention issued under section 3 of the Act is impermissible and this mention by itself vitiates the order. The Counsel submitted that the Detaining Authority is not entitled to fix the period of detention at the initial stage when the order under section 3(1) of the Act is passed by him. It was contended that the mention of the period of detention at the outset even before the detention is considered by the Advisory Board vitiates the order as it is likely to prejudice the case of the detenu before the Advisory Board. In order to appreciate this contention it would be proper at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act which are as under :