K.K. MATHEW, J.

(1) THIS application filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the validity of an order for detaining the petitioner, passed by the District .Magistrate of Kamrup, under S. 3(2) (a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, on 30/08/1971, and prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.

(2) ON the conclusion of the hearing of the case on 7/10/1971, we passed the following order :

"WE are satisfied that the order of the District Magistrate, Kamrup, dated 30/08/1971, detaining the petitioner under S. 3(2) (a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, cannot be sustained and as such the order of detention is set aside and the detenus is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. The grounds for the decision will be given in due course."

(3) NOW we proceed to state the facts and give the grounds of our decision. The petitioner was a dealer in salt and other commodities at Gauhati in the State of Assam. On account of unprecedented flood the State was practically cut off from the rest of the country in the month of July and August, 1971, and there was acute scarcity of salt in the state. Although there was no law in the State regulating the distribution, sale or price of salt, the Deputy Commissioner of Kamrup in consultation with the representatives of the Kamrup Chamber of Commerce fixed the ceiling price of salt at Rs. 19.00 per bag of 75 kg. by his order, dated 14/08/1971. It was on the allegation that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community that the District Magistrate passed the order for detaining the petitioner.

(4) THE grounds of detention communicated to the petitioner read as follows:

"1. That you are the proprietor of Messrs. Mishrilal Nirmal Kumar of Fancy Bazar, P. S. Gauhati, District Kamrup, which mainly deals in salt, an essential commodity for human consumption. Prices of essential commodities including salt have recorded unprecedented rise in the middle of July, 1971, and salt became so scarce that this essential commodity was selling in and around Gauhati at exceptionally high prices immediately after the breaches of road and train communications between Assam and the rest of the country. You, being one of the lead ing dealers of salt at Gauhati, availed yourself of the opportunity of profiteering in this commodity by resorting to hoarding.

THE sudden disappearance of this most essential commodity from Gauhati Market and resultant acute scarcity and high prices resorted to by you and other unscrupulous dealers became a subject-matter of criticism both in the local press and the platform and the situation ultimately posed a serious threat to the maintenance of law and order at Gauhati in August, 1971. In order to ease the supply position of this commodity, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, fixed on 14/08/1971, a ceiling on the prices of salt at Rs. 19.00 per bag and you wilfully organised profiteering by secretly selling this essential commodity at exorbitant rates at Gauhati by creating an artificial scarcity yourself even after fixation of its price by Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, on 14/08/1971, and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and your being at large has, therefore, constituted a risk to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the Community. (Sd.) (Illegible), District Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati."

(5) THE petitioner filed a representation against the grounds. In it he contended among other things that the grounds were vague. The representation was rejected and the governor of Assam approved the order of detention under S. 3(3) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.

(6) THE argument put forward by counsel on behalf of the petitioner was that the grounds were vague and, therefore, the petitioner had no effective oppor