K RAMULU LINGAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case appears to us to i lustrate the Telugu expression 'Pichika Meedhu Brahmastram Nuclear' weapon against a swallow and the aphorism of Khalil Gibran as rendered into Telugu by Dr. C. Narayana Reddy (Chattalunna End uku ? Chitti Chipalanu Pattuolaniki) Why are there laws ? To catch but small fish."

(2.) The petitione is detained under section 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and he seeks a writ of habeas corpus to gain his liberty.

(3.) Under an authorisation issued by the Chief Rationing Officer, Hyderabad the petitioner has been doing the business of an authorised fair price shop His business consists of receiving supplies of rice, wheat and sugar from the Food Corporation of India on allotment by tbe Civil Supplies department and distributing the same to card-holders. The shop is but a small shop and there are but six hundred card-holders. Every month on an average he receives and distributes about 70 quintals of rice, thirty quintals of wheat and thirty quintals of sugar. According to the counter he is allowed a margin of Rs. 7, Rs. 6 and Rs. 5-50 in every quintal of rice, sugar and wheat respectively. Even on that basis after making allowances for tent and other administrative charges he could not be making a profit of more than Rs. 400 or Rs. 500 per month. While so, on 1st August, 1974, the Deputy Tahsildar and the Enquiry Inspector inspected the petitioner's shop and detected an excess of stock of 28 kgs. of wheat and 800 grams of sugar and a deficit of 8 kgs. of rice. On scrutinising the registers it appeared as if about 201 card-holders had been issued quantities of rice, wheat and sugar in excess of what they were entitled to get on the basis of their card. The quantities so distributed in excess among 201 card-holders, according to the registers were 11 quintals, 981/2 kgs. of rice, 7 quintals 19 kgs., of wheat and 3 quintals 80 kgs. of sugar. But a test check of six cards chosen at random showed that the card-holders were not sold anything in excess of wheat was due to them. Entries were made in the registers as if more had been given to them. Concluding that this was a device adopted by the petitioner to sell foodgrains obtained from Government agencies to make undue profits thereby disrupting their normal supply to the public, the Commissioner of Police directed the detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from further acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community.