PANKAJ KUMAR TIBREWAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Habeas Corpus petition challenging the order dated 11.3.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Sundargarh detaining the petitioner under Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (in short 'the Act') and the order of the Government of Orissa dated 20.3.2002 approving the said order or detention and for directing the opposite parties to release the petitioner from such detention forthwith.

(2.) THE relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner is a partner of a firm M/s. Harduttrai Ranglal which carries on business at Biramitrapur in the district of Sundargarh of Orissa. The said firm is a wholesale licensee under the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 made by the State Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On 11.3.2002, the District Magistrate, Sundargarh in exercise of his powers conferred in Subsection (2)(a) of Section 3 of the Act directed that the petitioner be detained in the special Jail, Rourkela until further orders with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community or with a view to making gain in any manner which directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of Clause 3 of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962. Pursuant to the said order of detention the petitioner was detained on 13.3.2002. The grounds of detention were prepared and signed by the District Magistrate, Sundargarh on 15.3.2002 and served on the petitioner on 16.3.2002. Paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the grounds of detention, which are relevant are quoted hereunder:

(3.) MR . S.C. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is clear from the grounds of detention that the petitioner has been detained on the allegation that the firm of which the petitioner is a partner had lifted 1,20,000 litres of Kerosene Oil from M/s. Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation in ten tank lorries and sold some quantity of the said Kerosene Oil in the black market during December, 2001. He submitted that on 24.12,2001, the Marketing Inspector, Enforcement Squad, Panposh accompanied by the Marketing Inspector, Biramitrapur, physically verified the stock of Kerosene Oil in the business premises of the petitioner's firm and effected seizure of 900 litres of Kerosene oil in five barrels, one cash memo book, the stock register and the purchase invoices issued by the Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Thereafter, on 25.1.2001, the Marketing Inspector submitted a prosecution report under Sections 7 and 9 of the Essential Commodities Act, to the District Magistrate, Sundargarh and the District Magistrate directed joint verification of the petitioner's firm by the Civil Supplies Officer and the Executive Magistrate. The Civil Supplies Officer and the Executive Magistrate made a joint verification and submitted their report on 12.2.2002, The District Magistrate then issued an order dated 13.2.2002 suspending the wholesale licence of the petitioner's firm and allotted the monthly quota to M/s. Utkal Oil Agency, Rourkela and on 14,2.2002 issued an order sanctioning prosecution of the petitioner and the petitioner's firm under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for alleged contravention of various clauses of the conditions of licence granted in favour of the petitioner's firm and Clause 3 of the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962. Pursuant to the said sanction order, a prosecution has been instituted. Mr. Lal vehemently submitted that the aforesaid facts would show that after December, 2001 when the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in black marketing of Kerosene Oil, the wholesale licence of the petitioner under the Orissa Kerosene Control Order, 1962 has been suspended and there was no scope for the petitioner to further indulge in black marketing of Kerosene Oil. He argued that no event subsequent to December, 2001 has been referred in the grounds of detention for which detention of the petitioner was necessary. According to Mr. Lal, the order of detention passed on 11.3.2002, i.e., after more than two months from the alleged acts of black marketing of Kerosene Oil on the part of the petitioner, is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay. In support of this contention, Mr. Lal cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagan Nath Biswas v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 1516; Sk. Serajul v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 1517; T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 225 and Predeep Nilkanth Paturkar Vrs, S. Ramamurthi, 1994 Criminal L. J. 620.