Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J. :- The petitioner detained by the order of the District Magistrate for anti-social proclivity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community challenges its validity in this petition for habeas corpus.

2. Mr. Frank Anthony has vigorously urged two vital defects as vitiating the detention order incarcerating the petitioner, based mainly on the unreported ruling of this Court in Prabhu Dayal v. District Magistrate, Kamrup W. P. No. 1496 of 1973 D/- 11-10-1973 the wellknown Lohia case (1960) Cri LJ 1002) and a few other peripheral observations in other decisions. The District Magistrate was uncertain whether he would detain the petitioner to prevent disruption of maintenance of supplies or of services essential to the life of the community and such a mindless order suffered from a fatal genetic disease diagnosed by this Court in many decisions as fatal, runs the submission.

3. Now, the admitted facts and the authoritative law and their interaction. It is best to begin with the impugned order itself which reads :

"No 1182/C dated, the 9th October, 1973 whereas I am satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri Jagdish Prasad. Proprietor M/s. Lachmi Bhandar, North Market Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary to make an order that he be detained. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (No. 26 of 1971), I hereby direct that the said Shri jagdish Prasad be detained.

He shall be treated in detention in Ranchi Jail and classified as Class Y and in division IB.

(S. N. Singh)

District Magistrate, Ranchi."

The executive interdict on the trader s freedom is issued to inhibit his acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The semantics of supplies and services in this context, argued Sri Anthony, serves to show that certain activities bear upon supplies only, e.g. hoarding or blackmarketing, while other actings may disrupt services only, e.g., sabotage of railway tracks or scavengers strike. He argued that some misconduct may be ambidextral as, for example, huge quantities of telegraph wires being poached or a railway wagon being looted in an organised manner. The corner- stone of his contention, in the first stage, is that black -marketing in foodgrains belongs to the first species - essential supplies - and not to the second - essential services. In Rameshwar Lal v. State of Bihar (1968) 2 SCR 505 this Court pointed out.

"No doubt black marketing has as its base a shortening of supplies because blackmarket flourishes best when the availability of commodities is rendered difficult. It has a definite tendency to disrupt supplies when scarcity exists or scarcity is created artificially by hoarding to attain illegitimate profits. Indulging in blackmarketing is conduct which is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies. It is hardly necessary to read supplies conjunctively with services, as was contended although cases may exist where supplies and services may both be affected. The word and is not used conjunctively. If sweepers strike, no question of disrupting supplies arises but services essential to the life of the community will certainly be disrupted."

4. The familiar imagery in Lohia s case = (1960 Cri LJ 1002) of concentric circles in the context of Law and Order (the larger circle) and public order (the smaller but graver one) was projected here with a little re-adjustment. Similes and metaphors lend literary grace to legal argument but are apt to ply tricks in areas of strict logic or cold law. Courts have to be cautious while transplanting picturesque projections from one situation to another. So let us take an independent close-up of the profiles of essential supplies and "services" to discover common