MEERA AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition No. 10242/09 has been filed by Smt. Sarita Agrawal, challenging detention of her husband Shri Preetam Agrawal. Writ Petition No. 11281/09 has been filed by Smt. Madhumita Agrawal challenging the detention of her husband Rajkumar Agrawal. Writ Petition No. 11729/09 has been filed by Smt. Meera Agrawal challenging the detention of her husband Shri Manoj Agrawal and Writ Petition No. 12473/09 has been filed by Smt. Seema Agrawal challenging the detention of her husband Radhe Shyam Agrawal. Undisputedly, Preetam, Rajkumar, Manoj and Radhe Shyam have already been detained in execution of the orders issued under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. Writ Petition No. 12015/09 has been filed by one Bansilal Agrawal challenging the detention order which has yet not been executed anticipating that the order would be executed against his interest.

(2.) In all the cases it is not in dispute before us that Bansilal Agrawal is running a factory where he is producing ghee and other edible items. Detenue Rajkumar is running a factory in the name of R.K. Dairy, detenue Manoj is running a factory in the name of Pankaj Dairy and detenue Radhe Shyam is running a factory in the name of Shreeje Dairy. Preetam Agrawal has come out with the case that he is not running any dairy or factory, but in fact he has been detained because against his brother Radhe Shyam, certain cases were registered and on some earlier occasion Preetam Agrawal was prosecuted for offence punishable under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act.

(3.) It is common submission by all the petitioners that the orders have been passed by the District Magistrate without application of mind and even without availability of the material on record. It is submitted that not even a single report of the public analyst showing that the sample drawn from the petitioners from their permises was found adulterated has been placed on record. It is also contended that the question regarding misbranding ghee and other products though has been taken to be one of the grounds for detention, but undisputedly, there is nothing on record to show, suggest or prove that any material was produced before the concerned District Magistrate. The different petitioners have submitted that in long many years if some samples have failed and the prosecution is still going on, then at this stage the District Magistrate could not record his satisfaction that by the acts and deeds of the petitioners, they were likely to adversely affect maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. It is also submitted that despite availiability of the material with the concerned police officers/reporting authority if the material has not been produced on record and the substantial facts/evidence which could lead to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioners were involved in the activities which were prejudical to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, the petitioner could not be ordered to be detained.