RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the order dated 16-9-1989, passed by the Collector and District magistrate, Warangal, the first respondent-herein, directing detention of petitioner s husband in the Central Prison, Warangal in exercise of the powers vested in him under sub-section 2 (a) of Sec. 3 read with Section 3 (1) of the prevention of Blackmarketting and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential commodities Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), and setting the petitioner at liberty.

( 2 ) ON information received by the first respondent that Sri Kundaram damodar, husband of the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the detenu , had indulged in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of the commodity, i. e. , Kerosene, essential to the community by indulging in diversion of Kerosene meant for distribution to the Public in order to use the diverted Kerosene for adultetaring High Speed Diesel, and in turn, sell the adulterated diesel to consumers and thereby contravened clause 3 of Kerosene (Restriction on use) Order 1966, punishable under the Essential Commodities act 1955, the said Damodar was directed to be detained by the first respondent. Pursuant to the order of detention, the detenu was actually taken into custody on 17-9-1989 and lodged in the Central Prison, Warangal.

( 3 ) SRI B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned order of detention was in violation of article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 8 of the Act, in that certain documents relied upon and referred to in the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu, were not at all supplied to him, thereby denying him an opportunity to make an effective representation to the authorities envisaged under the Act, against the order of detention. It is complained on behalf of the detenu that trip-sheet No. 67, invoice No 9025, the stock book, and bill books seized from one Krishna Prakash, very much relied upon by the first respondent in paragraph Nos. 4, 3, 9 and 12 respectively of the grounds of detention, were not supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention.

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate-General, appearing for the respondents, fairly concedes that the above complaint is well-founded, though he would like to have it, that the documents not supplied to the detenu are irrelevant.

( 5 ) IT is now well-settled that the barest minimum safeguards enacted in Art. 22 of the Constitution of India, which must be observed before an executive authority can be permitted to preventively detain a person, thereby drowning his right of personal liberty in the name of public good are twofold : (1) The detaining authority must, as soon as may be, that is, as soon as practicable after the detention, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made ; and (2) The detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. One of the basic requirements of cl. (5) of Art. 22 is that the authority making the order of detention must, as soon as may be, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days from the date of detention as required under Sec. 3 of the cofeposa Act, or not later than ten days as required under Sec. 8 of the act. If the grounds of detention under the Act are not furnished to the detenu within five or ten days, as the case may be, the continued detention of the detenu would be rendered illegal both on the ground of violation of Cl. (5) of Art. 22 as also on the ground of breach of requirement of S. 8 of the Act. What is meant by the grounds of detention is that, the grounds of detention, in their entirety must be furnished to the detenu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document