BANWARILAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three matters are taken up together for hearing. We have heard Sri. J.M. Choudhury,. learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner in all the Civil Rules and Sri. P.G. Banian, learned Advocate General, Assam for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri R.P. Kakaty, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 in all the cases. Sri Baruah has also produced the records available with him before us.

(2.) In Civil Rule (HC) 41/96 the petitioner is the Sales Manager in the firm under the name and style of M/s Kishore & Co, Adabari. In Civil Rule (HC) 42/96 the petitioner is the handyman of the oil tanker and in Civil Rule (HC) No. 46/96 the petitioner is the pump Operator of the firm M/s Kishore and Company. There was a Police case being Jalukbari Police Station case No. 241/96 under Sections 420/120-B 1.P.C read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, The allegation was chat one N.N. Buragohain, Inspector of Police (C.I.D) after receipt of a secret information ought red-handed while the oil tanker bearing Lorry No. AS-01 -5448 was offloading Blue dyed S.K.oil meant for public distribution system into underground diesel reservoir of M/s Kishore & Co, Guwahati. It was further alleged that the Oil lorry was loaded with 12000 litres of Blue dyed S.K.oil and this was despatched from Dhaligaon Despatch Unit of IOC to be delivered at Tap Off Point of IOC Ltd. at Betkuchi, Guwahati. Instead of off-loading the said S.K.oil at Betkuchi Tap-Off point the said S.K. oil was put into underground diesel reservoir of the filling station.

(3.) 7 persons were named as accused in the case. They are as follows : i) Shri Binod Sarawgi, S/o late Harak Chand Sarawgi, Proprietor of M/s Harak Chand Sarawgi' & Sons (A dealer of petroleum products). ii) Sri Sudesh Kumar Jain, Alias Muting Manager of M/s Kishore and Company, Adabari. iii) Sri Anil Shaw, Handyman of Oil Tanker. iv) Shri Bhawarlal Sarmah, as described earlier. v) Shri Rajesh Dubey, employee of M/s Kishore & Co, vi) Shri Lakhan Deo Rai, vii) Shri Alai Miah, the owner of the Oil tanker and the carrying contractor. Out of these 7 accused Arsons, the pitiable and mysterious, thing is that the authority arrested only the following persons : i) Sri Anil Shaw ii) Banwarla1 Sharma iii) Rajesh Dubey iv) Lakhan Deo Rai. It is stated that four persons were not arrested, but only three persons were arrested meaning thereby that Lakhan Deo Rai was not arrested. Be that as it may, the authority without making any attempt to arrest the other accused persons who are the King pin of the alleged crime proceeded in a queer manner in the matter. The three persons named herein were released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Kamrup on 8.8.96, 30.8.96 and 4.9.96. But, while they were in jail, the order of detention was passed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The ground of detention which is common in all the three cases are as follows : "GROUND OF DFTENTION Whereas M/s Kishore & Company, Adabari, Guwahaii was caught red- handed while mixing blue dyed S.K. oil from an Oil Tanker No, AS-01-C 5448 and whereas M/s Kishore & Company, Adabari jointly with the owner and other staff of the tank lorry involved themselves in malpractices by mixing blue dyed S.K. oil meant for public distribution system with the Stock of High Speed Diesel Oil of the underground tank of M/s Kishore & Company, Adabari with the ulterior motive of making undue nonitary gain and in the process seriously affecting the public distribution system and thus have violated the provisions of Clauses 5 of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Prevention of Mal-practice in Supply & Distribution) Order, 1990." and on this ground the above mentioned 7 persons were ordered to be detained by, order dated 31.7.96. but only the three petitioners, were detained, nothing was alone with others, Thereafter the petitioners filed representations on 14.8.96 Annexure-V in all the Civil Rules. But from the record it is seen that the representation of Bhanwarlal Sharma is dated 14.8.96 others are dated 16.8.96 and the representations, it appears were not placed before the Advisory Board as required under Section 10 of the Act of 1980. Be that as it may, the Advisory Board confirmed the detention. Hence, these writ petitions.