Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.: This petition was heard on the 11th February, 1966; and at the close of the hearing, we allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner should be released forthwith and indicated that our reasons would be pronounced later. Accordingly, our present judgment gives our reasons for the order which has already been passed by us.

2. The petitioner, G. Sadanandan, has been detained by respondent No. 1, the State of Karala, under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules. 1962 (hereinafter called "the Rules") by an order passed by it on the 20th October, 1965. The said order recites that from the materials placed before respondent No. 1 it was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community, it was necessary to detain him. The said order further shows that under Rule 30 (4) of the Rules, respondent No. 1 had decided that the petitioner be detained in the Central Prison, Trivandrum, under conditions as to maintenance, discipline and punishment of offences and breaches of discipline as provided in the Travancore-Cochin Security Prisoners Order, 1950. The petitioner challenges the validity of this order by his present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution.

3. The petitioner is a businessman who carries on wholesale business in kersene oil as ESSO dealer and in provisions in his places of business at Trivandrum. In connection with his wholesale business of selling kerosene oil, the petitioner receives kersosene oil either in bulk or in sealed tins from the ESSO company. When the kerosene oil is thus received by him, the petitioner transfers the kerosene oil from barrels into empty tins purchased from the market and sells them to his customers. Until the Kerala Kersene Control Order, 1965 was promulgated, and brought into force on the 24th October, 1965, the petitioner was not required to take a licence for carrying on his business in kerosene oil. As from the 24th October, 1965 the said trade could not be carried on in Kerala without obtaining a licence. It is common ground that the petitioner has not been granted a licence in that behalf. To his present petition, the petitioner has joined respondent No. 1 and N. Paramasivan Nair, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) Supplies Cell, Crime Branch, Trivandrum, as respondent No. 2.

4. The petitioner alleges that respondent No. 2 caused to be initiated criminal proceedings against him in Criminal Case No. 70 of 1965 in the Court of the District Magistrate, Trivandrum. These proceedings were commenced on the 20th May, 1965. The charge against the petitioner set out in the First Information Report was that the petitioner had exhibited a board showing stock "nil" on the 20th May, 1965, at about 7.00 p.m. in his wholesale shop at Chalai, Trivandrum when, in fact, there was stock available in his shop The Police searched the shop that day in the presence of respondent No. 2, though in the relevant papers prepared in regard to the said search, no reference was made to his presence. According to the petitioner, the board indicating nil stock had been exhibited in his shop, because 7 ins out of the available stock had been sold to one. D. N. Siktar in regard to which a sale memo was being prepared when the raid took place, whereas the two remaining this were in a damaged condition and could not have been sold. Even so, the raid was carried out and F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner alleging that he had committed an offence by violating Rule 125 (2) and (3) of the Rules read with clause 4 of the Kerosene (Price Control) Order, 1963.

5. The petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate before whom the F. I.R. had been filed, and was released by him on bail. In this case, all the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined, except the officer who had submitted the charge-sheet. Except the Sub-Inspector of Poli