ALLAHAHAD HIGH COURT
A.S. Srivastaya and S.l. Jafri, JJ.
Om Prakash Agarwal - Petitioner
versus
State of U.P. and 2 others - Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 11720 of 1984
Decided on 30.11.1984
Mr. N.K. Cbaturvedi, Advocate-For the Petitioner.
D.G.A. - For the Respondents.
IMPORTANT POINT
The law after the amendment of the cement control order, 1967 w.e.f. 28-2-1983 does not permit control of “non-levy” cement.
Headnote:Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of essential Commodities Act. 1980-Section 3(1) - Non-levy cement - Cement Control Order, 1967 (as amended w.e.f. 28.2.1982) not permit control of-Detenu, a retail dealer in non-levy cement-Result-Detention order quashed. (Para 18)
JUDGMENT
A.S. Srivastava, J. - By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Om Prakash Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) questions the validity of his continued detention by an order dtd 2.8.1984 of the District Magistrate. Agra, passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 198O (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. The detenu, a resident of 4/108, Kutehery Ghat, Agra and a retail dealer in nonlevy cement, is carrying on his business in premises No. 37/105, Nagla Padi. Saran Nagar, Agra, under a licence granted to him under the U.P. Cement Control Order, 1973 for carrying on this business at 86/6. New Agra. It was discovered in an inspection of the said two premises made by raiding party consisting of the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), District Supply Officer. Senior Marketing Inspector and two public witnesses. During the inspection it' was also found that the detenu was not only carrying on his business at a premises other than the place mentioned in his licence but was committing several irregularities. For example 39 original cash memos purported to have been issued to the purchasers and only one counterfoil were found in the shop. They were all loose. None of the 39 cash memos contained the names and addresses of the purchasers to whom they related. No stock register or sale register was available. Instead a rough copy was found in which stock of cement entered on that date was 89 bags. On physical verification the actual stock was 923 bags i.e. 33 bags in excess of the stock. No Rate and Stock board was found displayed. The detenu when asked to produce his licence, he slipped away from the shop without producing it. Thus he was found carrying on his business by contravening the provisions of U.P. Cement Control Order; 1973 and U.P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stock and control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977. Consequently, the Senior Inspector of District Supply Office lodged a report on the same date with the Police for initiating proceedings against the detenu under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. On 26. 7. 1964 the detenu surrendered in court and before he could secure his release on the bail the impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate, Agra, on 2 8.1984. On 3.8.1984, this order was served On the detenu also in jail.
3. On 14.8.1984 a representation was made by the detenu to the State Govt. which was forwarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, to the District Magistrate where it was received on the same day at 8.45 P.M. 15.8. 1984 being a public holiday due to the Independence Day, this representation along with the comments of the District Magistrate was sent to the State Govt. on 168. 1984. A copy of the representation was al-o sent to the Advisory Board (Detention) Lucknow, where it was received on 17.8.1984. The representation of the detenu was ultimately rejected by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on 27.8. 1984 which was communicated to the detenu on 19.1984.
4. The grounds on which the impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate, as specified in the order, are; that on 4.7. 1984 the detenu was found carrying on business at premises other than the one permitted by his licence; that the inspection of his shop made on 4.7. 1984 by a raiding party further revealed that no stock or sale register was maintained by him; that no stock board and rate board were displayed at his shop; that no proper cash memos were issued to the purchasers in respect of sales; that the stock of cement at the shop on 4.7. 1984 was found to be in excess Le even the rough stock book found at the shop was not correctly maintained. The detenu was, therefore, carrying his business in violation of the provisions of the U.P. Cement Control Order, 1973 and the U.P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices and Stock and Control of Supply and Distribution) O