MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is one Smt. K. Manjula, wife of Kalakonda Buchaiah, She approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a prerogative writ of Habeas Corpus directing the production of her husband Sri Kalakonda Buchaiah, S/o Chandrasekharaiah of Mandanpuram village, Kothakota Mandal, Mahaboobnagar district from Musheerabad jail, Secunderabad. A further direction is also sought to release her husband and set him at liberty forthwith by declaring the order of the detention dated 8-8-1997 made in Ref. No. D2/4971/97 by the second respondent as confirmed in Memo No. 915/l and O-II/97-12 and G. O. Rt. No. 5213, dated 24-9-1997 and 25-9-1997 respectively by the first respondent as illegal, void and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 22 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) FEW facts which have culminated in filing this writ petition are as under : According to the petitioner, her husband was doing business in wholesale kerosene in House No. 3-25/1, Madanapuram of Kothakota Mandal, vide licence No. 23/wnp/81 in the name of M/s. Venkateswara Petroleum Agency and is authorised to distribute the subsidised kerosene oil in various villages of Kodair Mandal to Fair Price shop dealers under Public Distribution System by drawing supplies of kerosene allotted from time to time from HPCL Depot. Petitioner submits that the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell has taken her husband into custody on 9-8-1997 and sent for detention to central jail, Musheerabad on 11-8-1997 as a result of the Order of detention passed by the second respondent on 8-8-1997. Petitioner claims that the order of detention appears to have been passed on the allegation that her husband has been indulging in unauthorised purchase of subsidised kerosene oil over and above the quota allotted to him by the Collector (CS), Mahaboobnagar from H. P. C. Oil Depot at Guntakal and has been diverting the same into blackmarket for illegal gains. Petitioner further alleged that the detention order passed by the second respondent is based on the two cases registered against her husband in Cr. Nos. 64/vc-MBNR/93 and 53/vc-MBNR/95 for the offences under Clauses 3, 12, 13, 24, 27 of A. P. Petroleum Products (Licencing and Regulation of Supplies) Order 1980 read with Sections 7 and 8 of E. C. Act, 1955 and under Clause 3 (2), 4 (1), 4 (1) (b), 4 (1) (c), 4 (2) of the Kerosene (Restriction on use and fixation of ceiling price) Order 1993 and other clause of A. P. Petroleum Products (Licencing and Regulation) Order, 1980 respectively.

( 3 ) PETITIONER further alleges that the detention order was passed on 8-8-1997 which was served on the detenu on 10-8-1997 along with the grounds of detention wherein the detenu has been given a right to make representation against the order of detention to the first respondent, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Supplies, New Delhi and Advisory Board duly constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. According to the petitioner, the detenue has made a representation on 9-9-1997 to the above authorities. The first respondent without applying his mind and in a routine manner without taking into consideration the relevant material furnished by the detenue, passed an order on 24-9-1997 rejecting the representation. The Advisory Board constituted under section 9 of the Act also failed to consider the representation of the detenu and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent on the basis of the opinion of the first respondent confirming the detention vide his order dated 25-9-1997 in G. O. Rt. No. 5213 and directed that the detention of the detenu be confirmed for the whole period of six months from 10-8-1997. Petitioner states that the representation made to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Civil Supplies, New Delhi has also been rejected without any valid reasons.

( 4 ) IN the background of the detention order passed by the second respondent as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document