VIDYA SHANKAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for his release.

(2.) The petitioner has been detained by order of the District Magistrate, Raipur dated 11th August, 1982 under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. The grounds of detention were also supplied on the same date to the petitioner. The petitioner is the Manager of a Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti, which was allotted three fair price shops, one in village Mowa and two in village Pandri ward. The allegation against the petitioner is that the fair price shops were allotted 100 quintals of rice per month and the quota of rice for the months of April, May and June 1982 was lifted but was not sold to the ration-card holders through the fair price shops and was sold in open market and the petitioner indulged in black marketing. We cannot examine the correctness of the allegations contained in the grounds. The allegations contained the grounds clearly make out a case that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in the Explanation to section 3 of the scheme made by the State Government by notification dated 20th March 1981. This scheme is connected with the Madhya Pradesh Food stuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960, which is made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. By contravention of the provisions of the scheme the petitioner clearly committed an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon our decision in Rajendra Kumar Gupta v. District Magistrate, Durg, and another1. In that case the detenu was the president of a co-operative society which was allotted certain fair price shops. Proceedings for cancellation of the licences of the society for running the shops had already been started and the licences had been suspended before action for detention was taken. In this context, we said that there could be no apprehension that the detenu may indulge in activities of black marketing in future. In the instant case, it is not alleged that the allotment of fair price shops to the petitioners society has been suspended and, therefore, the case relied upon has no application. In our opinion, the order of the District Magistrate is justified on the grounds on which it was made.