Judgment

SEN, J.:- This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by one Nand Lal Bajaj for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of his son, Inderjit alias Billa, who has been detained by an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Ropar, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act), on being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the life of the community.

2. Various grounds have been taken challenging the validity of the order of detention, but it is not necessary for us to deal with them all as the view that we take on one of them is sufficient to dispose of the petition. The main contention is that the procedure adopted by the Advisory Board in allowing legal assistance to the State and denying such assistance to the detenu was both arbitrary and unreasonable and thus violative of Article 21 read with Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. First as to the facts. On June 1, 1981, the District Magistrate passed an order of detention under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act on being satisfied that detention of Inderjit was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, and as required by sub-section (3) thereof, made a report forthwith to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order of detention had been made and the State Government approved of the same. The detenu was apprehended on June 11, 1981 and served with the order of detention together with the grounds and, in due course, the detenu submitted his representation challenging the order of detention to the State Government. He made a request in writing that he be allowed the assistance of counsel during the hearing before the Advisory Board, but the Government did not accede to his request. However, it appears that the detaining authority was represented by the State counsel at the hearing. The detenu thereupon asked the Advisory Board that he may also be afforded an opportunity for legal assistance. What transpired before the Advisory Board can best be stated in the words of the petitioner. The relevant averment in para 17 of the petition is as follows :

Before the commencement of these proceedings the detenu requested the State Government in writing that he be allowed assistance of counsel during the course of the proceedings before the Advisory Board. The said request was denied. The detenu to his utter surprise found that whereas he had to place his case before the Advisory Board without assistance of counsel, the order of detention was defended by State counsel. The lawyers representing the State, during the course of the proceedings before the Advisory Board included the District Attorney and the Additional District Attorney who were assisted by the District Legal Adviser and one legal assistant. The detenu had also -requested the Advisory Board verbally that he be allowed the assistance of counsel during the course of the proceedings . . . . ...

(emphasis added)

In answer to the rule nisi, the District Magistrate Ropar who is the detaining authority, has filed a counter-affidavit by which he explained the circumstances which led to the issue of the detention order. In reply to para. 17 of the petition, it is averred :

In reply to para 17 of the petition it is stated that Section 11 (4) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 prohibited the assistance of a lawyer to the detenu before the proceedings of Advisory Board, which are confidential. However the Advisory Board is competent to call any in formation from the appropriate Govt. or from any person for the purpose through the appropriate Govt. as laid in Section 11 (1) o