KOTHA KOTA HADU SUBUDHI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a licensed dealer in fertilisers and carries on his business at Aska Road within the town of Berhampur in the district of Ganjam, under our territorial jurisdiction. Under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1957, the maximum selling price of different categories of fertilisers has been determined. The District Magistrate of Ganjam, Opposite Party No. 1 passed an order on the 26th of December 1973, in exercise of powers under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereafter referred to as the Act) for the detention of the petitioner on the following grounds : -

(2.) THE petitioner has alleged that on 13.10.1973, he left for Calcutta by AIR from Bhubaneswar and stayed there on the 14th October 1973. From there he proceeded to Patna on 15.10.1973 where he stayed over for the following day. He claims that he left Patna for Varanasi on the 17th and stayed there for a day. According to the petitioner, therefore, he was absent from his place of business when the sales to Sasibhusan Padhi and K. Appallaswamy were effected. It has further been pleaded that during his absence his brother -in -law, a young man still studying in the college, effected the sales. The petitioner has ascertained from him that nothing more than what has been stated in the respective bills had been collected from the purchasers. Alternately it has been pleaded that the brother -in -law was not the authorised agent of the petitioner and even if any extra price had been charged, since it had not been at the instance, or with the knowledge, of the petitioner, he cannot be held responsible for it. The petitioner has also alleged that the material upon which the detaining authority had acted is tainted. In one of the cases it has been said that the statement of the purchaser relied upon is the outcome of pressure, persuasion and manipulations of the vigilance officers. According to the petitioner since the cash receipts show the controlled rate, merely on the oral statement of one person in respect of such of the transactions running counter to the document - the respective bills - the detaining authority should not have passed the order of detention.

(3.) LAW is fairly settled that the detaining authority cannot be required to furnish proof of the facts relied upon for making the order of detention. As we observed in a different case recently if the detaining authority is required to place proof in support of the facts stated to constitute the grounds, it would indeed amount to conversion of this proceeding to a regular criminal trial. Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner seriously attempted to convince us that there was no sufficient material for the satisfaction of the detaining authority. According to him, tested by the standards of human probabilities, the irresistible conclusion on the admitted facts would be that the petitioner has nothing to do with the sales that took place on the 13th Oct. 1973. Since the purchases were made under permits, the purchasers being sure of the supply to them of the fertilisers, there would be no occasion for them to agree to pay a higher price for the fertiliser.