SAROJINI GEHLOT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of the petitioner's husband Raghuvirsingh, who has been detained by an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Indore, on 3rd Dec. 1983 (Annexure 'A'), under S. 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows :- The detenu carries on business as a transport agent at Indore. On 26th Nov. 1983, a truck bearing registration No. M. P. N. 5866 parked at 'Vandana Petrol Pump', Indore, was searched by the Food Inspector. Amongst the goods found in the truck were 6 barrels containing 200 litres of kerosene in each barrel. On enquiry by the Food Inspector, it was found that the goods in the truck were loaded by the detenu, who failed to produce the relevant record in that behalf. On these facts, on 3rd Dec. 1983, respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Indore, passed an order under S. 3(2) of the Act directing that the petitioner's husband be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and with a view to making gains in any manner, which tends to defeat the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be allowed. It has to be borne in mind that the Act confers an extraordinary power on the executive to detain a person without trial and Courts have to be alert to see that the discretionary power is not exceeded or misused. It is true that this Court cannot consider the sufficiency of the grounds, on which the satisfaction of the detaining authority is based, but it is now well settled that the ground on which the satisfaction of the detaining authority is based, must be such, as observed by the Supreme Court in Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 550 that a rational human being can consider and connect it with the act, in respect of which the satisfaction is to be reached.