B GOPAL REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for issuance of a writ declaring that the order of detention No. 38/83 dated 9-12-1983 and the notification dated 29-1-1984 in Rc. B. Secret 38/83 of the 1st respondent published in the Nellore District Gazette dated 30-1-1984 are illegal, ineffective and unconstitutional and restraining the respondents from enforcing the said proceedings. The essential averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition may ba stated: The usual course of business conducted by the petitioner is to accept bookings of parcels from Madras to Nellore and to stations enroute. Since November, 1982 the petitioner is engaged in film production businsss with office at Mahalingapuram, Madras. The 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Sec. 3 (2) (a) of the Prevention of Blackmarketting and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (Act 7 of 1980) in his reference Order No 38/83 dated 9-12-1983 with a view to detain the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act and the petitioner was not aware of the same. The 1st respondent issued a notification dated 29-1-1984 purporting to exercise powers under Section 7 (b) of the Act. In the said notification, it is stated that the petitioner should appear bafore the 1st respondent in Collector's office, Nellore within 15 days from the date of the notification in the official gazette. The said notification was published in the Nellore District gazette on 30-1-1984 The petitioner came to know about this only on 7-4-1984 when he was at Vijayawada.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the detention order ceased to be effective as the requirements under Section 3 (3) and 3 (4) are not satisfied and the action initiated under Section 7 of the Act by publication in the District gazette does not comply with the provisions of Section 7. The learned additional Advocate General took notice and sought to sustain the proceedings and produced the relevant records.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner says that the time bound programme indicated in Section 3 (3) and (4) is not adhered to and particulars relating to detention have not been furnished. Section 3 (3) warrants the District Magistrate to forthwith report the fact of the detention order passed under sub-section (2) accompanied by grounds and other particulars touching the formation of opinion and such order by its own subsists for a period of 12 days only unless the approval of the Government is accorded. Section 3 (4)obligates the Government to forward the order or approval of the order alongwith grounds and the particulars within seven days of such approval or order. The order of detention was passed on 9-12-1983 and on the same day the 1st respondent forwarded the same to the Government alongwith copies of the order, grounds and other particulars. On 19-12-1983 the Government approved the order and on the same day forwarded the same by I ;'ter dated 19-12-1983 with all the particulars required under Section 4. The tima bound programme and other requirements envisaged under Section 3 (3) and (4) are fully complied with and as such the contention of the petitioner is not sustainable. The other contention regarding contravention of Section 7 is equally untenable. The proceedings under Section 7 can be set in motion in a situation where the authority has reason to believe that the petitioner is trying to avoid the execution of detention order and one of the modes is publication in the official gazette and if the detenu does not respond to the publication appropriate proceedings can be initiated. The procedure 1n Section 7 is to enforce the detention order and is not concerned with the validity of the order. The contention is that this publication should be in the gazette of India and not in the District gazette as the expression "Official Gazette" in Section 7 connotes gazette of India only as defined under General Clauses Act. The publication in the District gazette by the District Magistrate to whom the powers are delegated is proper and the official gazette must be necessarily considered as District gazette in the context of enforcing the order of the District Magistrate. In any event the publication substantially complied with the provisions and further the procedure to enforce the compliance of the detention order is not concerned with the validity of the detention order.