TARUN BARMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Bunch of writ petitions for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus arises out of same incident dated 30.1.97 resulting in passing of preventive detention orders against the petitioners by the Respondent No. 3, the District Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati in the exercise of his powers under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act'). The essential facts are substantially the same but for the variation in name of the detenue. Even the date and place of alleged Black Marketing activities and the date of detention order is the same so much so their sequence as annexures also appears similarity.

(2.) Annexure-A is the detention order passed by the detaining authority, while Annexure -B is the ground of detention. They are dated 3.2.97, which are reproduced bellow:

(3.) The representations dated 15.2.1997 submitted by the detenues has been filed as Annexure - C to the petitions which was received in four copies by the Jail authority on 15.2.97 as is evident from endorsement made in the merginal column, Annexure-C. By order dated 27.3.97 the notices were directed to be issued. Learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India accepted notice for Respondents-Union and learned Government Advocate accepted notice on behalf of State of Assam, they have accordingly filed their affidavit-in-opposition.