IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD SUPPLIES & CONSUMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -detenu praying to quash the order of detention dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure -1) passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ganjam under Sections 3 (1) and 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act,1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) as well as the order dated 23.9.2010 (Annexure -4) passed by the State Government under Section 12(1) read with Section 13 of the aforesaid Act confirming the order of detention passed by the Collector & District Magistrate against the petitioner urging various legal contentions.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Managing Director and proprietor of Simla Silk Sortex Rice Mill and Biswanath Rice Mill located at Surada in the district of Ganjam. The aforesaid two mills deal in rice and paddy as Miller Agent -cum -Custom Miller for different Government agencies including Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. for delivery of common raw rice. On the basis of allegation that the petitioner is involved in illegal dealing in essential commodities like rice and paddy, the allegation was enquired into by a team of officers which conducted raid in the godown and premises of the aforesaid two Mills on 7.6.2010. During raid, one of the workers present produced six numbers of purchase and stock registers of both the Mills but he failed to produce other relevant and required documents for verification. The team found entries of purchase of paddy in the Purchase Register of Simla Silk Sortex Mill. They also verified some of the receipts as per the said register regarding purchase and payment of minimum support price to the farmers named therein. To ascertain the genuineness of the entries, the named farmers were contacted but they denied to have sold any paddy or to have received any cheque from the petitioner that has been mentioned in the register to have been issued to them. The team further found that Biswanath Rice Mill is a Boiler Plant, which was found to be in operational condition and producing both common raw rice and common boiled rice in the mill without any permission for producing the same. There was also boiled paddy on the drying yard and boiling tank and huge stock of boiled rice in heaps at the rice milling outlet point of the Mill from which the team was of the opinion that the petitioner had indulged in illegal trading of boiled rice when he was appointed as custom miller for common raw rice. He had also not maintained separate registers for each mill which according to the team was apparently done to avoid inspection by higher authorities. In the register the petitioner had shown to have issued four cheques in favour of the farmers in token of payment of minimum support price but the concerned farmers denied to have received the cheques. Also the cheques had not been presented for encashment till the order of detention was passed. The team also found that there was no signature of the farmers on the vendor receipts issued by the petitioner. On verification of the stock, the team found that there was shortage of Q. 342.87.200 of paddy and excess of Q. 85.00 of common raw rice. Therefore there was contravention of the provisions of Clauses 4,7,9,10 and 14 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) and Restrictions on Sale and Movement Order, 1982. Accordingly, action under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act was initiated and prosecution report under Section 7 of the said Act was filed. Further the investigating officer filed report for detaining the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Act so as to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Collector and District Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner has been committing offence punishable under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act read with the Orissa Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale and Movement Order, 1982. Being satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community at large, the Collector and District Magistrate passed the order of detention in exercise of the power conferred on him under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act referred to supra. The said order was confirmed by the State Government vide Annexure -4.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate with reference to the record sought to justify both the orders contending that the District Magistrate after applying his mind to the records/materials which were seized at the time of raid and spot verification which revealed that so many illegalities were committed by the petitioner which are prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodities essential to the community passed the order of detention. The grounds are in details set out in the grounds of detention which was communicated to the detenu and the same has been perused by the State Government which passed the order of confirmation under sub -section (4) of Section 3. Thereafter the State Government has discharged its function in communicating the same to the petitioner and given opportunity to submit his representation. All the materials were placed before the Advisory Board which considered the same in details and after calling for further information from the appropriate Government submitted its report holding that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, the State Government confirmed the order of detention. The representation submitted by the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board for consideration which has been carefully considered by the Advisory Board which in its report opined that the order of detention passed against the petitioner is on valid grounds. The State Government has accepted the same and passed the order of confirmation. Therefore, learned Government Advocate submits that no ground is made out for interference with the order of detention.