GULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed praying for a writ of habeas corpus declaring the action of the first respondent in his proceedings Ref. No. C1/431/m/99, dated 10-6-1999 detaining Mohammed Sahem S/o. Sirajuddin under Section 3 (2) (a) read with 3 (1) (a) of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act of 1980 as illegal and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and for his release.

( 2 ) THE Collector and District Magistrate, Medak at Sangareddy, i. e. , first respondent herein in 10-6-1999 vide reference No. C1/431/m/99 in exercise of powers vested to him under Section 3 (2) (a) read with Section 3 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 passed an order of detention of one Mohammed Saleem S/o. Mohammed Sirajuddin and directed that he should be detained from the date of service of the order and to be lodged at the District Jail, Secunderabad.

( 3 ) IN support of the writ petition, an affidavit is filed by one Shadul Mohammed S/o. Khomroddin alleging that his junior maternal uncle was served with a detention order dated 10-6-1999 and was arrested and lodged at Central Prison, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. It is alleged that the Government has not placed the grounds of detention before the Advisory Board constituted, and by not placing the grounds of detention before the Advisory Board by 30-6-1999 has violated the mandatory provisions of Section 10 of the Act and submitted that the detention order is liable to be quashed. It is further alleged that detenu knows only Telugu and Urdu and has made a representation to the respondents on 11-6-1999 for supply of translated copies of the orders and the same were not furnished. It is also alleged that the detenu did not had the opportunity to make a representation. Lastly, it is alleged that the detenu was not produced before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board has not submitted its report to the Government within seven weeks from the date of detention.

( 4 ) A detailed Counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent denying the allegations made in the affidavit in support of the writ petition. With regard to the first allegation, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the detention order dated 10-6-1999 was served on the detenu on the same day and he was arrested in pursuance of the detention order and lodged in Central Prison, Musheerabad, Hyderabad is not correct and the same is denied. It is further submitted that since the date of registering the Crime No. 1/99 the detenu is absconding and the detenu was taken into custody on 9-6-1999 and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, on 10-6-1999 and the learned Magistrate remanded the detenu to the Judicial custody for a period of 15 days and was lodged at District Prison, sangareddy. It is submitted that the order of detention was served on the detenu on 12-6-1999 as per Section 10 of the Act and the order of detention was placed before the Advisory Board on or before 2-7-1999 including the day of order of detention. The order of detention was served on the detenu on 12-6-1999 along with grounds of detention and the same were acknowledged by the detenu on the same day. The grounds of detention indicate the instances which prove that the detenu was involved in rice and paddy smuggling activities. It is submitted that the detenu is owner of the Lorry bearing No. ABT 4944 utilizing his lorry for transporting the rice and paddy to other States illegally for getting pecuniary profits unlawfully. The Inspector of Police Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Medak district intercepted the lorry owned by the detenu on 1-12-1997 at about 4. 00 a. m. while transporting 100 quintals of BPT Rice to Bidar of Karnataka State without any valid permit or licence. In that incident a case in Crime No. 71/vc-MDK/97 was registered as action therein is contra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document