KHIROD CHANDRA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constn. challenge is to the order of detention (Annexure -1) dated 20.10.1981 by which the District Magistrate of Cuttack (opposite party 2) directed the detention of the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 3(2)(a), Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

(2.) THE following two grounds were in due course communicated to the petitioner in support of the order of detention : -

(3.) THE detaining authority has filed a counter affidavit on 15.12.1981 wherein it has been pleaded that the Executive Magistrate had checked the stock both on 17.7.1981 and 19.10.1981 (though in the grounds of detention there was no reference made to the second date). Reliance has been placed on an application made by some cement dealers addressed to the District Magistrate dated 10th of August 1981, wherein Shrima Iron Stores is also an applicant. It has been asserted that the Licensing Authority had issued the licence in favour of Smt. Kalyani Sahu as proprietress of the firm, Shrima Iron Stores, and the licensing record does not show that Shrima Iron Stores is a firm. Reliance has been placed on a receipt dated 19.10.1981 granted by the Executive Magistrate in token of receiving the Stock Register of the firm where the petitioner has been described as Manager of the firm. In fact, this is one of the documents produced by the petitioner marked in Annexure 2 series. In the counter affidavit, it has been further pleaded that the Advisory Board has already opined that there is sufficient ground for detention of the petitioner and the State Government has passed an order confirming the detention. In para 19 of the counter affidavit, the detaining authority has pleaded : -