ASLAM HAJI KASAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that the respondents-authorities passed an order dtd. 8/4/2022 in exercise of the powers under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short "the Act"). Thereafter, he made a representation to the competent authorities. The same is not considered. The Government approved the order of detention. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.

(2.) Shri Khare, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel submits that the impugned order of detention is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. That no ingredients of Sec. 3 of the Act have been made out that would warrant detention of the petitioner under the said Act. That the respondents have failed to consider the representation made by the petitioner against the order of detention. That the order of detention has been passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed.

(3.) The same is disputed by Shri B.D. Singh - learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. They have filed their return. It is their case that the petitioner has indulged in various offences under the Essential Commodities Act as well as under the Indian Penal Code. That various cases have been registered against him. Therefore, in order to prevent him from committing further crimes the instant order has been passed. Hence, he pleads that there is no error in passing the impugned order of detention. That the order of detention has been passed in the larger interest of the society, hence, no interference is called for.