Important Point
Where dealer was dishonestly selling blue coloured kerosene meant for weaker section to those who were not entitled to and thus indulging in black marketing, a person who purchased same as white coloured kero­sene at market price without knowledge that dealer was selling subsidised kerosen, it could not be said that the purchaser who was found in posses­sion of the kerosene colluded with the dealer in black marketing so as to preventively detain him u/s 3(2) of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act.

Judgment

The petitioner is challenging in this petition the order of detention passed against him by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

2. The facts leading to the passing of the detention order, briefly stated, are as follows. On 4.7.1998, the Officers of the Food and Civil Supplies Controller’s Office raided the sugar candy factory of the petitioner. He was found in possession of 1140 litres of white colour kerosene and 515 litres of blue coloured kerosene. The white colour kerosene was suspected to be blue coloured kerosene later on turned into white. The officers suspected that the entire quantity of kerosene was a part of the blue coloured kerosene meant for distribu­tion amongst weaker section of the society at subsidised rates through the Public Distribution System. Analysis of samples of that kerosene done by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmeda­bad confirmed their suspicion. As the petitioner was thus found to have unauthorisedly obtained, stored and consumed blue coloured kerosene meant for weaker section of the society for his business purpose and as the entire quantity of kerosene was purchased from M/s. Purvi Petroleum under bills show­ing sale of while kerosene and as M/s. Purvi Petroleum was earlier also found to be indulging in black marketing of blue kero­sene, a proposal was made by the Food and Civil Supplies Controller to the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad for taking necessary action against the petitioner. The District Magistrate, on consideration of the materials placed before him, was satisfied that the petitioner was in collusion with M/s. Purvi Petroleum which was indulging in black mar­keting of blue coloured kerosene and that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of essential commodity like kerosene, it was necessary to preventively detain him, and, therefore, passed an order for detention of the petitioner on 9-10-1998. The petitioner was actually detained on 8.1.1999 pursuant to the said order of detention.

3. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is no restriction with respect to possession of white colour kerosene and yet in the grounds of detention it is stated that “for storage or consumption of the white coloured kerosene, you are not having any permit of licence/parvenu either in your name or in the name of the firm”. He submitted that this statement in the grounds of detention shows non-application of mind and a casual approach by the District Magis­trate while passing the order of detention. During the hearing of this petition Mr. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for the Dis­trict Magistrate, stated that really there is no restriction regarding possession, storage and use of white kerosene by consumers. But he submitted that the white colour kerosene which was found from the petitioner’s possession was really blue coloured kerosene turned into white and it was in that context the District Magistrate stated in the grounds of detention that in respect of the said quantity of white kerosene the petitioner did not have any licence or permit. What is submitted by Mr. Dholakia appears to be correct and, therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Dave in this behalf deserves to be rejected.

4. It was next contended by Mr. Dave that the entire quantity of kerosene found from the possession of the petitioner was purchased under bills from M/s. Purvi Petroleum, which firm is an authorised dealer, and the petitioner had paid proper price for purchasing the kerosene. He had purchased the entire quantity of kerosene at Rs. 9/- per litre which was the market price for white kerosene at that time. The petitioner is a having a candy factory and is using about 400 to 500 litres of kerosene everyday. He was thus not found in possession of that much quantity of kerosene which can be s