DIDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, the detenu is challenging the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate Ropar, Under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short, the Act ). The said order was made with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities to the community in future. The incidents relied upon in the grounds of detention served on the detenu read as follows:

(2.) THE representations made by the detenu were forwarded to the Govern- ment. In obedience to Section 10 of the Act, the case of the detenu was placed by the State Government before the Advisory Board on Sept. 14, 1981. The grounds of detention" were also placed before the Advisory Board in order to enable it to give its opinion. The Advisory Board submitted its report to the State Government on Oct. 9, 1981. The State Government, on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, passed an order dated Oct. 20, 1981 confirming the detention of the detenu Under Section 12 of the Act and this order of confirmation, (copy annexure P. 4, was intimated to the detenu. It is this detention, originating from the order dated Aug 31, 1981, approved by the State Government and continued under the order of confirmation passed by the State Government, that is being challenged in the present petition by the detenu through his son Didar Singh, on the grounds:

(3.) IN reply to the contentions raised in the petition, the District Magistrate, Ropar, has filed his detailed affidavit. The detaining authority has denied that the detention order was passed in mala fide exercise of the power conferred on it or that it suffers from non-application of mind or was issued for any purpose other than those mentioned in the order itself. According to the detaining authority after applying his mind to the material placed before him, he has issued the detention order only after satisfying himself that it was necessary to do so, so as to prevent the detenu from indulging in prejudicial activities. It is also denied in the affidavit that the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu were vague.