B. AUDI LAKSHMI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to release the detenu, who is the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's husband was detained on 10 -12 -1983 in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam by an order of detention dated 9 -12 -1983 passed under S. 3(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was detained on the following grounds:

(2.) ON 4 -8 -83 the Inspector of Police (V.C.), C.S. Department, Angole along with the staff under the supervision of the District Superintendent of Police, Warangal, on special duty, at 06.00 hours seized the lorry TMT 6219 belonging to the detenu at Chengalamma Temple, Sullurpet when it was proceeding towards Madras loaded with 138 bags of paddy weighing 102 quintals and four bundles of rice, for purposes of sale, without a valid permit. The said Inspector of Police and his staff surrounded the lorry and questioned the driver Ramakrishnaiah about the load. He stated that the lorry contained 138 bags of paddy and four bundles of rice and 8 bundles of old aluminium vessels and two bundles of plastic material, and that it was proceeding to Madras. There is no licence for him to carry on business in sale of paddy and rice The trip -sheet disclosed that 25 bundles of old plastic waste was being transported from ASRKALT premises, Nellore to Madras. The Way Bill No. Nil dated 26 -7 -83 shows that 25 bundles of old plastic waste being transported from Nellore to Karim Basha, Yerrabolu Street, Madras. The detenu is therefore, guilty of getting the paddy and rice transported to Madras without obtaining licence under the A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers' (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 and contrary to Cls. 3A(1) and 4(1) of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967.

(3.) SRI Manohar, the learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, contends that Art. 22(5) of the Constitution or Sec. 8 of the Act does not enjoin the Detaining Authority to furnish the documents along with the grounds of detention. According to him, the clause (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution of S. 8 of the Act deals with the time within which the grounds on which the detention has been made, should be furnished and they do not fix the time limit for furnishing the documents to the detenu and the law enjoins that the documents should be furnished to the detenu with reasonable expedition and the reasonable expedition will depend upon the fact of each case. In support of this contention he relied upon the Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Ramachandra A. Kamat v. Union of India, : AIR 1980 SC 765. He further contends that their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not correctly follow this decision in Kirit Kumar v. Union of India (supra). The learned Additional Advocate General commented that though the Full Bench of the Supreme Court did not mandate that the documents should be furnished along with the grounds of detention, he was not able to comprehend as to how the Division Benches of the Supreme Court in Ana Carelina D'Souza's case and Kirit Kumar's case can take the view that the documents should be furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. He also contends that as the documents were supplied on 21 -12 -1983 to the detenu, it should be treated that the documents were supplied with reasonable expedition and the case on hand is, therefore squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench in Ramachandra A. Kamat v. Union of India (supra) and hence the above cited two rulings and also the ruling in Icchu Devi v. Union of India (supra), which is again the ruling of the Division Bench does not apply to the case on hand.