D KALAVATHI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is by one Smt. Kalavathi for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus for setting at liberty her husband, Shivasari Gangadhar (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) who is undergoing detention pursuant to the order dt. 6-6-1986 passed under S. 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 by the second respondent the District Magistrate (District Collector), Adilabad. The gravamen of the charge against the detenu is that he is the registered owner of lorry bearing No. ATJ 3041, and that he had been transporting paddy from Adilabad District in this State to Dharmabad District in Maharashtra State by making use of that lorry, without any permit in that behalf, which act amounted to violation of Clause 3 of the A.P. Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order read with S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In the operative portion of the grounds it is stated as follows :

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, the learned Advocate General had drawn the attention of the Division Bench to a recent Division Bench ruling of this Court (which appears to have been so far not reported) in W.P. Nos. 1 and 13037/85, dt. 11-12-1985, wherein it was held :

(3.) In view of the fact that there appeared to be an apparent conflict between the decision of the Supreme Court, on the one hand, and the decision of our Division Bench, on the other, and considering the importance of the question of law involved, the Division Bench has referred the matter to a Full Bench; and thus it is before us now. The short facts are : The second respondent received a letter dt. 13-5-1986 from the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Nizamabad, containing a proposal that the detenu, who was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community by smuggling paddy from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra, had to be detained in order to prevent him from carrying on such activities. The second respondent considered the proposal carefully with reference to the material that was placed before him and having satisfied himself that it was necessary to detain detenu under the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, passed the impugned order of detention. The order was executed by the Inspector Vigilance on 10-6-1986. The detenu was lodged in the District Jail, Secunderabad on 12-6-1986. The grounds of detention together with all the annexures were served on the detenu on 12-6-86. The Government of Andhra Pradesh was informed of the passing of the detention order on 8-6-1986. The detention order was approved by the Government in G.O. Rt. No. 2458, General Administration Department, dt. 16-6-1986. As required under S. 3(4) of the Act, the Government of India also was informed of the detention. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board by the Government. The Advisory Board opined that there was sufficient cause for detention. The Government in G.O. Rt. No. 2985, General Administration (General-A) Department, dt. 22-7-1986, confirmed the detention order and directed the detenu to be continued in detention for the whole of the period of six month.