RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has been detained pursuant to order of the District Magistrate, Sambalpur passed on 13-7-2005 under Section 3 (1), 3(2) and 3 (3) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') challenges the legality of the aforesaid order in this writ application.

(2.) From the order Impugned before this Court in Annexure-10, it appears that the District Magistrate, Sambalpur passed the detention order under the Act on 13th July, 2005 and the same was confirmed by the State Government in Annexure-11 on 23rd July, 2003. The grounds of detention are that on 13-7-2005 at about 11.30 P.M. the petitioner was caught red handed while loading Blue dyed Kerosene supplied to him for distribution under the Public Distribution System during June, 2005 in a Tanker bearing registration No. CG-10-ZB-0828 for the purpose of transporting the same to Raipur for selling in the open market at a higher price to gain illegal profit depriving the bona fide consumers of the locality from getting their monthly entitlements at Government price. In support of the aforesaid allegations as is evident from grounds of detention, the District Magistrate relied upon the statement of the driver of the Tanker as well as the helper of the same Tanker. The District Magistrate also relied upon the inquiry report of the sub-collector (Sadar), Sambalpur for passing the order of detention. Apart from the above, the grounds of detention also indicate that on verification of the Books of Accounts it was found that the petitioner was in possession of 6,500 liters of kerosene on 4-7-2005 after which the Stock Register was maintained and the Issue register and cash memo were maintained up to 30th June, 2005. The said documents establish that the petitioner failed to maintain the daily accounts contravening the above condition of the license granted in his favour under the P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 as well as Clause 9 of the said Control Order, The other ground mentioned in the grounds of detention relates to contravention of certain provisions of the P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2002 and Kerosene (Restriction On Use And Fixation Of Ceiling Price) Order 1993.

(3.) Shri Ashok Mohanty, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf the petitioner challenges the order of detention basically on two grounds. The first ground taken by the learned counsel is that on 13-7-2005 at about 11.30 p.m. a raid was conducted and kerosene was seized. Even though such raid was conducted at 11.30 P.M. in the night, the order of detention was passed on the very same day by the District Magistrate, Sambalpur. In the grounds of detention reliance is placed on the statements of the driver and helper of the Tanker as well as on the inquiry report of the Sub-Collector (Sadar), Sambalpur which were not available with the District Magistrate on 13-7-2005 as is evident from the grounds of detention. The second ground taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the other allegations on the basis of which the petitioner has been detained only relate to contravention of certain provisions of the aforesaid two control orders and there being no past history of such contravention, at best the District Magistrate could have taken action under the provisions of the said Control Orders either by cancelling the license or by suspending the same. On the above allegations an order of detention could not have been passed in absence of any material whatsoever to show that the petitioner was involved in similar activities in the past.