MUTTHUKURU PRAMEELA DEVI Vs. COLLECTOR AND DIST MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner who is the wife of the detenue M. Srinivasulu challenges the detention order in Rc C1/1165/M/2023, dtd. 17/8/2023 passed by the 1st respondent and consequential approval order in G.O.Rt.No.38, dtd. 25/8/2023 and confirmation order in G.O.Rt.No.50, dtd. 16/10/2023 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violation of article 22 of the Constitution of India and for release of the detenue.

(2.) The 1st respondent having considered the material placed before him showing that the detenue was involved in the following 23 crimes for the offences U/s 420 IPC and Sec. 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act (for short "EC Act") in 19 crimes and U/s 420 IPC in 4 crimes and having been satisfied that the detenue is a habitual black-marketer and contravened the clauses of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order 2008 (for short "APSCD ORDER 2008") and therefore provisions of Sec. 3(1) and (2) of The Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short "Act 7 of 1980") apply to him ordered his detention.

(3.) 1st respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner is a habitual bloc marketer engaged in the clandestine business of purchasing PD commodities (Rice) meant for public distribution system and by hoarding, diverting and selling the same without any valid license under APSCD ORDER 2008 through his associates and causing interruption to the process of supply of essential commodities to the beneficiaries and thus indulging in lawless activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance and supply of essential commodities to the community through public distribution system. It is further stated, he is also involved in criminal cases in Nandyal, Allagadda and Atmakur Sub divisions. In criminal cases of several police stations of Vijayawada city and they are all under investigation and thus the detenue is a habitual black-marketer. The detention order was passed by following the rules. Since the offences were punishable under 7 years, the detenue was issued notices U/s 41A CrPC. Thus, the detaining authority has meticulously perused the material placed before him and scrupulously followed the rules and arrived at the subjective satisfaction to the effect that if such a habitual black marketer is let free, there will be an eminent possibility of his committing similar offences and causing interruption to the process of supply of essential commodities to the beneficiaries. The contention that the detenue was not so far convicted has no force because order of preventive detention can be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. Finally it is stated that the detention order was passed only to prevent him from committing further offences.