(1.) Challenge in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order of detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short, the Act) bythe District Magistrate Sambalpur, by his order dated April 8, 1983.
(2.) Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that there has been infraction of the mandatory provision contained in Section 3(4) of the Act requiring the State Government to report the fact of detention after its approval to the Central Government Within seven days from the date of approval together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that some of the grounds of detention are not only unfounded, but vague in character which would give a clear indication of complete non-application of mind by the detaining authority prior to the subjective satisfaction which would be the foundation of making the order.
(3.) The learned Government Advocate has contended that the order of detention was approved by the State Government on April 18, 1983 and the requirement of Section 3(4) of the Act was complied with on May 6, 1983 beyond the period provided therein and he has instructions to submit that as there had been a series of natural calamities in the State, the concerned officers were extremely busy for which there had been some delay. According to him, in the absence of any provision that noncompliance of Section 3(4) of the Act would render the order of detention invalid, the order of detention cannot be struck down on account of the delay. He has submitted that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not justiciable and for good and valid reasons, the impugned order of detention had been passed.