Back
1975 Supreme(SC) 192
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. BEG, A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND N.L. UNTWALIA, JJ.
National, Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and others Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 550 and 551 of 1974
D/-1-5-1975.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 1971 - Section 3 (1) and 3 (2) - Petitions asking for writs of habeas corpus against their allegedly illegal detention - two brothers along with their father from Pakistan as refugees - Two brothers became partners of business carried on in name of firm on or from month of January - They have been carrying on the business of general merchandise - Petitioners case business was carried on in wooden cabins where several refugees from Pakistan started carrying on their business in wooden Thadies - It is claimed It is stated that the Administrator, Municipal Council - Sikar without giving any notice to any of the holders of the shops in Thadies with the help of a large number of employees of Municipal Council, police constables and officials removed all the Thadies by force - Petitioners shop was removed in such a brutal and ruthless manner that all articles of marchandise in shop were scattered here and there in Bazar - They assert that they had to collect the same and shift them to their godowns, house and a shop which is said to be in occupation of their father - Thadi-shopkeepers under the leadership of one of the petitioners carried on an agitation against demolition of Thadies - Meetings were held, deputations were taken to the officials and the shopkeepers went on a strike – Held, Petitioner had hoarded and concealed essential commodities in his business premises as also in his residential house and that he did not display stock position in his business premises and further when the customers wanted to purchase soaps and match boxes he refused to sell them saying that he had no stock - In such a situation it was alleged that petitioner had hoarded the stock with the intention of selling them in black-market with a view to make undue profit - It is no doubt true that in paragraph 6 of judgment it is said that from mere fact that petitioner did not display the stock of match boxes and soaps in the business premises the only possible conclusion was that he was hoarding stock for the purpose of selling it in black-market and thus make undue profit - But said dictum had to be appreciated in background of entire facts of Kamla Prasad s case - Refusal to sell to customers clearly showed that even though business was being carried on in premises stock position was not displayed - On other hand, on facts of this case, we are not satisfied that there was failure on the part of petitioners to display price and stock list in their shop or that it could lead to conclusion that their intention necessarily was to hoard goods and do any black-marketing or profiteering. No instance of any sale at black-market rates was given - Applications allowed.
Judgment
UNTWALIA, J. - These are two writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India by two persons who are brothers asking for writs of habeas corpus against their allegedly illegal detention made pursuant to the orders of the District Magistrate, Sikar (Rajasthan) under Section 3 (1) read with Section 3 (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 1971. Nathmal is the petitioner in Writ Petition No, 550/1974 and his brother Bhagwandas is the petitioner in the other writ petition. The facts of the two cases are common and the points involved in them are identical. They are therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. There does not seem to be any infirmity in the due observance of the legal formalities under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, yet, for the reasons to be stated hereinafter, the detention of the petitioners is not legal and valid. The facts necessary to be stated for disposal of the two petitions are these. From June 29. 1974 to 1st of July, 1974 shop and other premises of the petitioners were searched and large quantities of certain commodities were recovered. In the opinion of the District Magistrate it became necessary to detain the two brothers under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. He, therefore, passed separate orders against them but in identical terms on July 8, 1974 under sub cl. (iii) of cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of S. 3. The grounds served are also identical and are as follows:
"1. You are a partner of the firm M/s. Ramesh Kumar Bhagwandas in town Sikar, and you are dealing in business of essential and useful commodities for life like soaps, tea, blades, battery cells and matches. From the date 29-6-1974 to 1-7-l974, District Police, Sikar, raided and took search of your house, shop and godowns situated at Sikar and from your possession recovered 94.881 match sticks, 1,724 bathing soap cakes, 10,645 cloth washing soap cakes, 4.815 cloth washing soap bars, 10.745 blades and 2.465 battery cells. You had not displayed price list and stock position on your KAROBAR (Business) which was necessary to be displayed under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with the Rajasthan (Display of Prices of Essential Commodities) Order. 1966.
2. On 29th and 30th June, 1974. the Drug Inspector took search of your Godown situated at Sikar and recovered therefrom pain-relieving medicines i.e. 1301 tablets of Novalgin, 980 tablets of Saridon 620 tablets of Avedan, 900 tablets of Anolzin, 2000 tablets of Anandkar; for possessing and selling which you had not obtained a licence. You had unlawfully hoarded these pain-relieving medicines which are useful for life, for profiteering keeping in view the scarcity of these in the market.
3. You had hoarded unlawfully these essential articles useful for life in such large quantity with the intention of profiteering by selling them in the black market, so that, you may create an artificial scarcity with the object of charging any price you like from the customers. Because there is scarcity of these articles in the market at this time and the public is feeling difficulty in procuring them, and as such you have made their availability difficult for the public by hoarding them for your selfish and unlawful profiteering.
4. 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 and 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."
3. The case of the petitioners is that the two brothers along with their father migrated to Sikar from Pakistan as refugees. They started business under the name and style of M/s. Ra
