C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.

These writ petitions raise common legal issues, besides separate but identical detention orders being challenged therein. Each of the detenus is detained under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Prevention of the Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short the 1980 Act).

2. The gravamen of the allegation on which the detenus have been detained is that they have been engaged in clandestine business of purchasing commodities meant for public distribution system by hoarding, diverting and selling the same without any licence under the A.P State Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order, 2008) r/w Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 (for short the 1995 Act). In the grounds of detention, it is specifically alleged that the material placed before respondent No. 2 revealed that the detenus have been doing illegal and clandestine business of purchasing PDS rice and other commodities from the ration cardholders and thereafter storing and selling the same to the needy people for pecuniary gain. The grounds referred to and relied upon three criminal cases against each of the detenus.

3. Sri V.H.V.R.R. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the main ground of detention, namely, that the detenus have been purchasing the rice meant for public distribution system from ration cardholders, even if accepted on its face value does not constitute any offence either under the 1980 Act or the 1995 Act or under the Control Order, 2008. The learned counsel further submitted that the commodity of rice in respect of which allegation of illegal purchase, storing and sale is made against the detenus is only a scheduled commodity under the Control Order, 2008 and that as the activity of the detenus referred to above does not contravene any of the provisions of the Control Order, 2008, the detenus are not liable for any penal consequences and consequently the very ground on which the detenus have been detained is unsustainable in law and the detention orders are therefore liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Home (TS) submitted that since rice is a foodstuff within the meaning of foodstuffs included in entry (3) of the Schedule to the 1995 Act, any contravention thereof constitutes an offence. He has further submitted that as the activity of the detenus, namely, bulk purchase of rice meant for public distribution system from the cardholders and selling the same for higher prices, is de-reiling the whole public distribution system and thereby it is affecting the public order.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

6. The detention orders were passed under Section 3 of the 1980 Act. Under the said provision, if a person is found acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, he can be detained under an order to be made by the authorities referred to in the said provision. Under explanation to Section 3(1), the words acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community are explained as under:-

(a) committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), or under any other law for the time being in force relating to the control of the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in any commodity essential to the community; or

(b) dealing in any commodity

(i) which is an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955); or

(ii) with respect to which provisions have been made in any such other law as is referred to in clause (a), with a view to making gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of that Act or other law aforesaid.

7. We shall proceed for the purpo