RANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of detenu Ranjeet Singh through his wife seeking quashment of the detention order dtd. 24/1/2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Mandsaur under Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short the Act).

(2.) Facts of the case are that Police Station Garoth, Dist. Mandsaur registered a criminal case against the petitioner and others on 5/11/2022 under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 212, 201 and 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act bearing Crime No. 470/2022. The petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid crime on 14/12/2022. The Superintendent of Police, Mandsaur forwarded a report on 24/1/2023 to the District Magistrate making a request to detain the petitioner under the Act. On 24/1/2023, the District Magistrate passed a detention order under Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioner. The petitioner was detained in Central Jail, Indore on 26/1/2023. The said order was approved by the State Govt. in terms of Sec. 3(3) of the Act on 1/2/2023. On 6/2/2023, a representation on behalf of the detenue was made to the District Magistrate, State Govt. and Union Govt. as per the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Act. On 3/3/2023, the case of the petitioner was placed by the State Govt. before the Advisory Board without any decision on the representation constituted under Sec. 9 of the Act. On 3/3/2023, the Advisory Board considered the material on record placed before it and opined that there exists sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. On 9/3/2023, the State Govt. in purported exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 12(1) of the Act confirmed the detention order for the period of six months. While assailing the order of detention dtd. 24/1/2023 and the order of approval dtd. 9/3/2023 passed by the State Govt. under Sec. 12(1) of the Act, counsel for the petitioner submitted that a representation was submitted to the appropriate government in terms of the provisions of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 8, but the said representation was not decided by the State Government and the representation along with the decision on the same was not forwarded to and placed before the Advisory Board. He argued that in terms of the provisions of Sec. 8, the State Government is bound to decide the representation expeditiously without any delay and to place the same before the Advisory Board. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

(3.) Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court passed an order on 20/4/2023 and granted time to the State Govt. to file additional reply because the record was not indicating that whether any decision was taken on the representation of the petitioner before referring the matter to the Advisory Board and whether the representation of the petitioner alongwith decision on the same was referred to the Advisory Board. In pursuant to the said order, the State Government filed an additional reply and in para-4 of the reply stated that so far the representation sent to the Collector by the petitioner's wife by speed post dtd. 6/2/2023 is concerned, the same was received in the office of Collector, Inward Department on 8/2/2023, however, the same was misplaced and in this regard a show cause notice dtd. 25/4/2023 was issued to the concerned Clerk of Inward Department. After passing of order by this Court on 20/4/2023, the State Govt. rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dtd. 25/4/2023 after filing of the writ petition with delay of 76 days.