SESADEV DAS Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUNDARGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") pursuant to an order passed by the District Magistrate, Sundargarh, in exercise of his power conferred under Section 3(1)(a), (b)(i) and (ii) read with S.2(a) of the Act. The petitioner assails the said order, inter alia on the grounds that the detaining authority has the order of detention mechnically without applying his mind to find out whether launching of a criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act could also serve the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity essential to the community and that the grounds are vague and irrelevant and the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation thereby Article 22(5) of the Constitution has been violated.

(2.) The averments made in the writ application indicate that the petitioner was an Inspector of Co-operative Societies and by virtue of his office he was deputed to hold the post of Secretary, Regional Marketing Cooperative Society, Bonai. The said Society was appointed as a Storage Agent on 25-5-1989. The Civil Supplies Officer made a stock verification of different godowns of the Society on 7-7-1989 and 11-7-1989 and in course of such inspection certain shortages of stock were detected. On account of such shortage of stocks, the detaining authority passed the impugned order of detention on 14-7-1989 and the petitioner was taken into custody. The order of detention has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the grounds of detention, annexed as Annexure-2, were communicated on 18-7-1989 and the said order of detention was approved by the State Government on 20-7-1989. The petitioner was suspended from service with effect from 14-7-1989 and petitioner's representation was rejected by the State Government on 31-8-1989. The State Government confirmed the order of detention on 6-9-1989 for a period of six months from the date of detention. The petitioner thereafter has approached this Court.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it has been averred that the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention after applying his mind fully to the facts of shortage of stocks and on being satisfied that the detention of the petitioner is necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity essential to the community. The allegation of non-application of mind and that the detaining authority has mechanically passed the order of detention has been denied.