CHANDA MANDIRATA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition of habeas corups filed by the wife of the detenu Santosh Kumar who has been detained by order of the District Magistrate, Indore respondent No. 2 dated 6.12.1988 (Annexure P/IT) passed under section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (herein-after referred to as The Act) on the ground that the detenu Santosh Kumar who was appointed an agent in respect of a fair price shop in Ward No. 21 of Indore City, had obtained supply of 30 quintals of wheat from Nagrik Aapurti Nigam on 9/9/1988 for his fair price shop but instead of distributing the same to the consumers, had sold it in black market making illegal profits. The grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu on 7/12/1988.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under section 3 (1) of the Act, the Detaining Authority may, if satisfied, with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community it is necessary to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. It is contended that the order of detention is intended to prevent any person from acting in any manner pre judicial to the supplies of essential commodities and consequently, it is preventive action and not a punitive action. It has been submitted that in the instant case, the Detaining Authority, namely, the District Magistrate has already suspended the fair price shop allotted to the detenu by order dated 4/10/1988 (Annexure P/1) and bas directed attachment of the consumers to another shop for distribution of essential commodities for the circumstances, the detenu was already prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities for the detenu could not have indulged in black-marketing in the absence of supplies of essential commodities from Nagrik Apurti Nigam in view of Suspension of his fair-price shop as per the order of the District Magistrate (Annexure P/1). Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Jagdish Jaiswal v. State of M.P. in support of his argument.

(3.) It is well settled that the purpose of detention of a person under the provisions of the Act is preventive and not punitive. It is not disputed that on account of the order (Annexure P/1) the detenu could not deal in the essential commodities by running a fair price shop. It is not the case of the respondent-State that inspite of the suspension of fair-price shop of the detenu, he was in a position to dispose of essential commodities in black-market. In the grounds of detention, no such apprehension of the Detaining Authority has been stated. In such circum stances, after suspension of the fair-price shop of the detenu, it cannot be held that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, it was necessary to detain him. The order passed by the District Magistrate, Indore (Annexure P/11) detaining the detenu, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed.