SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 391

C.K. THAKKER & ALTAMAS KABIR
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS - PETITIONER
Vs.
BHAURAO PUNJABRAO GAWANDE - RESPONDENT
Appeal (crl.) 417 of 2008
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 417 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 583 OF 2007
Decided on : 03/03/2008

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 226-If a person is not actually detained, a writ of habeas corpus would not lie-Writ of habeas corpus may be prayed for in case of actual detention of a person if it is illegal or unconstitutional. (Para 35)

       Prevention detention-Scope of judicial review-Order of detention passed by detaining authority under relevant preventive detention law cannot be set aside by writ Court at pre-execution or pre-arrest stage unless Court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances specified in Alka Subhas Gadia (2006) 4 SCC 796 - Interference by Court at that-A detenue cannot ordinarily seek writ of mandamus if he does not surrender and is not served with order of detention and the grounds in support of such order. (Para 44)

       Preventive Detention-Subjective satisfaction-subjective satisfaction is the condition precedent for exercise of power of preventive detention-Court can always examine whether requisite satisfaction is arrived at by authority-If it is not, condition precedent to exercise of power would not be fulfilled and exercise of power would be bad. (Para 31)

       1992 Supp. (1) SCC 496-Followed.

       (1927) 3 St. Tr. 1; (1890) 15 AC 506;1917 AC 260; (1923) 2 KB 361; 1942 AC 284; AIR 1952 SC 196; 1959 Supp (2) SCR 316; (1966) 3 SCR 344; (1971) 1 SCR 690; (1972) 2 SCR 434; (1972) 2 SCC 550; (1973) 1 SCC 301; (1973) 4 SCC 76; (1974) 3 SCR 315; (1974) 4 SCC 135, 573; (1975) 2 SCR 832; (1975) 3 SCC 198; 1976 Supp SCR 132; (1979) 1 SCC 465; (1981) 83 Bom LR 190: (1982) 1 SCC 271; (1982) 2 SCC 403; AIR 1987 Guj. 253; (1990)1 SCC 328,: (1992) 1 SCC 434; (1992) 3 SCC 512; (1994) 5 SCC 54; (1994) 6 SCC 14; (1998) 1 WLR 503 (CA); (2005) 8 SCC 276; (2006) 4 SCC 792; (2006) 4 SCC 796 - Referred to.

JUDGMENT:

C.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra and others against the sole respondent (original petitioner) against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) on October 17, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 372 of 2006. By the impugned order, the High Court (partly) allowed the petition filed by the detenu-writ petitioner and set aside the order of detention dated July 27, 2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police (Nagpur City) under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The case of the appellants is that one Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande (detenu) was running a business of transportation of petroleum products and had fleet of tankers for carrying on the said occupation. He was indulging in illegal purchase and sale of blue kerosene oil in black market since last five to six years. Certain cases were also registered against the said Bhaurao under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 1955 Act'). In view of continuous activities of Bhaurao in black-marketing of essential commodity (Kerosene), the Commissioner of Police (appellant No.2 herein), in exercise of power conferred on him by sub-section (1) read with Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directed that the said Bhaurao be detained. Grounds of detention were sought to be served to the detenu on the same day.

4. According to the appellants, in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police was approved by the State Government. The detenu somehow came to know about the order of detention being passed again him and absconded himself. He, therefore, could not be detained, nor served with the order or grounds of detention in support of the order.

WRIT PETITION

5. The detenu, without submitting to the order of detention and surrendering, filed Writ Petition No. 372 of 2006 in the High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated July 27, 2006 being illegal, unwarranted and vitiated by mala fide. Other reliefs were also sought.

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

6. An affidavit in reply was filed by the Detaining Authority, inter alia, contending that the petition filed by the detenu was not maintainable at law. The detenu got the information about the order of detention, absconded himself and the order of detention could not be served upon him. The order was, therefore, affixed at a conspicuous place at the residence of the detenu on July 30, 2006 and a panchanama was drawn by the Police Inspector of Sakkardara Police Station, Nagpur. Since the detenu was not available, grounds of detention along with relevant documents also could not be served upon him. It was stated that the order of detention was approved by the State Government. Moreover, the entire proceedings of detention were submitted to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 10 of the Act as required by law. The Government decided the period of detention only after the opinion of the Advisory Board under Section 12 of the Act.

7. On merits, it was contended on behalf of the Detaining Authority that the detenu was indulging in black marketing of kerosene oil which was an 'essential commodity' and several cases had been registered against him. It was also stated that the detenu had executed a bond under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for good behaviour. In spite of all these steps, the detenu continued to indulge in black marketing activities of essential commodity and th



























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top