ASHISH KUMAR PAL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL JAMSHEDPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has been detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Sup plies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 1980 Act) by an order of detention, dated 10th April, 1980, (annexure '4') passed by the District Magistrate Singhbhum, for alleged violation of the restrictions imposed by notification no. 21423 P. C. dated 20-12-1954 in the Department of Supply and Commerce of the Government of Bihar, with respect to the despatch of salt from the State of Bihar to the State of West Bengal, has filed the present writ application for quashing the order of detention. The main ground on which the detention order has been chal lenged by Shri S. B. Sanyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the notification, which controlled the movement of salt, itself was not in force and, therefore, the order of detention cannot be sustained.

(2.) I may now briefly state the facts of the case. The petitioner is a partner of a firm, M/s. Makhanlal Pal, who deals in various foodstuffs including salt. On 18-3-1980 the business premises of the firm was inspected by the authorities of the Supply Department and, on the ground of some alleged irregularities, a first information report was lodged by an Executive Magistrate, Jamshedpur against the petitioner Ashish Kumar Pal and other with the Chakulia Police, alleging that the accused had indulged into an illegal trade in salt by despatching salt from Chakulia in Bihar to places outside the State and inasmuch as such the trade was banned under notification no. 21423 dated 20-12-1954, the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On the basis of the first information report, aforesaid, a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was, accordingly, registered by the Chakulia Police, being Chakulia P. S. Case no. 10 dated 18-3-1980 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner and others. Thereafter the petitioner was also arrested by the police. He, having failed to get his bail from the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge Chaibasa, filed a bail application [Criminal Miscellaneous no. 410 of 1980 (R)] in this Court. As it appears from the order dated 9-4-1980 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the aforesaid bail application, the petitioner undertook not to deal in salt the disposal of the above criminal prosecution pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshed pur. The petitioner was released by this Court on bail. It further appears from another bail order of the same date passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous no. 436 of 1980 (R) filed by Rabin Kumar Pal, that apart from giving the undertaking not to deal in salt any further till the disposal of the aforesaid case, it was further said that the petitioners were ready and prepared to sell to the Government or to the public, under their direction, the entire stock of 2500 bags of salt with the firm. This Court accordingly directed that it would be open to the Govern ment to purchase the said stock of salt on payment of the price to the petitioners firm or direct them to sell under the control of the appropriate authorities in accordance with law. But in spite of the above stipulation and before the petitioner could be released on the authority of the release order of this Court, he was served with an order of detention on 10-4-1980 in the jail itself and then with the grounds of detention on 12-4-1980 (annexures '4' and '5' respectively).

(3.) The petitioner challenges the order of detention, inter alia, on the grounds -