BHAGWAN DAS AND NATHMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two writ petitions complain that their liberty has been infringed on account of their unlawful detention under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). We shall examine the validity and legality of their detention in the light of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the procedural safeguards provided under the Act.

(2.) AS the case of both the petitioners is common and the grounds of their detention are identical, it would be proper to dispese of both the petitions by a common order. We will, however, mention the facts with reference to the writ petition No. 2223 of 1974.

(3.) IN this way you have created a great obstruction in the supply of essential articles useful for life to the public. Hence for the purpose of preventing you from carrying on such activities in future and for the purpose of facilitating the availability of these essential articles useful for life to the public, it has been found essential to detain you end therefore you have been detained under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. By this you are informed of the grounds of detention as required by Section 8 of the said Act. 4. Mr. Bhargava, leraned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the grounds of detention supplied to the two petitioners are non -exitent or false, irrelevant and ambiguous or vague. In respect of the first charge, Mr. Bhargava argued that he ground No 1 speaks of one shop of the petitioners, which was wooden cabin situated in Jatia Bazar, Sikar was demolished on June 28, 1974 the petitioners were not left with any shop at all which could be searched from 29th June to 1st July, 1974 as his been mentioned in ground No. 1. On account of the removal of the wooden cabin, which was the only place of business of the petitioners, there was no question of displaying either the price list or the stock position. He, therefore, argued that the allegations about the search of the shop of the petitioners from 29th June to 1st July, 1974 and that the petitioners did not display the price list and stock position on their shop were to tally false and non -existent The learned Additional Advocate General urged in reply that the petitioners have another shop under the house of Dr J.P. Tak, also situate in Jatia Bazar, Sikar and it is that shop which was searched and the recoveries were made and it was at that shop that the price list and stock position was not displayed by the petitioners. He placed reliance upon the seizure memo Ex, R/1, which was prepared on July 1, 1974 after the search was made and bears the signatures of the two petitioners According to the respondents, the petitioners had two shops of which one was the wooden cabin referred to by the petitioners and the other was a pucca shop mentioned in Ex. R/1.