YENKATA SATYA PRASAD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner holds a licence under the Andbra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order and was an 'authorised fair price shop' under and as defined in the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodites (Regulation of Distribution by Card system) Order, 1973, until such authorisation was cancelled by the Sub-Collector's proceeding dated 10-9-1974. Pursuant to an order made on 15-8-74 under S. 3(1) (a) (iii) of the Maintence of Internal Security Act the petitioner is detained in the Central Jail, Warangal. He claims his liberty and seeks a Writ of Habeaus Corpus under Article 226. of the Constitution.

(2.) The 'grounds of detention' supplied to the petitioner alleged that the petitioner, a ' Fairprice shop dealer in rice', was allotted 75 quintals.of rice by the Sub Collector to be distributed to consumers in Block Nos. 7 to 12 of Dhowleswaram through his fair price shop. The petitioner took delivery of 50 quintals on 25-7-1974. The Assistant Collector Rajahmundry and the special Deputy Tahsildar, Rajahmundry enquired into the functioning of the petitioner's Fairprice shop and discovered that the petitioner was indulging in fraudulent transactions in rice by recording fictitious sales in the 'Rice Issue Register' maintained by him: Nine instances of such transactions were mentioned in the 'grounds of detention'. According to the instances cited entries were made in the 'Rice Issue Register' as if rice had been sold to card-holders though no rice was in fact sold to the card-holders as revealed by the statements of the cardholders. Some of the cards contained no endorsements relating to the alleged sales. Some cards contained false endorsements which the petitioner managed to make by parting with small sum of money to cardholders. After enumerating the nine instances of 'fictitious and fraudulent transactions', the 'grounds of detention'went on to allege that the petitioner had thus denied rice to the card-holders who were entitled to be supplied rice at a fair price and indulged in black marketing of rice. Fictitious entries were made in the 'Rice Issue Register' to cover up the sales in the black-market. It was said that the detention of the petitioner had become necessary with a view to prevent him from further acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

(3.) Sri T: Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the detaining authority had alleged that the petitioner had indulged in blackmarketing without citing a single instance in the grounds of detention. He argued that none of the instances cited related to blackmarketing. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel. The nine instan es mentioned in the grounds of detention show that the petitioner had made entries in the 'Rice Issue Register' as if he had sold the quantities of rice mentioned there to card-holders who were entitled to rice when in fact he bad not effected any such sales. The rice covered by the entries. was not available with the petitioner. The irresistible inference was that the rice bad been sold in the blackmarket. The material before the detainning authority amply justified his conclusion that the petitioner had indulged in blackmarkcting. Sri T. Venugopala Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner next urged that all the instances cited in the grounds of detention related to the two days, 27-7-1974 and 28-7-1974. There was no prior or later incidents and therefore the detaining authority was not right in concluding that the petitioner was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the supply of commodities essential to the community. There is no substance whatever in this submission. It is not necessary that there should be continuous course of conduct over a long period in order to justify an order of detention. It was finally argued by Sri Venugopal Reddy that the petitioner's authorisation was cancelled on 10-9-1974 and since it was no longer possible for the petitioner to indulge in the activity contemolated by the grounds of detention his further detention was illegal. He relied on our decision in W, P. 4990/74.