( 1 ) THE petitioner who is son of the detenu Amratlal Mohanlal Patel has challenged the order of his fathers detention which is at annexure A to the petition. The impugned order of detention dated 21-7-1986 recites that the District Magistrate Rajkot is satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenace of supply of commodities essential to the commodity it is necessary to detain the detenu and consequently the authority has passed the impugned order in exercise of his power as conferred by sec. 3 (2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (the Act for short ).

( 2 ) THE detenu was supplied with grounds of detention of even date a copy whereof is at annexure B to the petition. The grounds against the detenu inter alia allege that the detenu is the proprietor of Patel Amrutlal Mohanlal Oil Mill Rajkot was carrying on manufacture of groundnut oil in his mill and had allegedly committed breaches of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1581 (the Order for short) promulgated by the State of Gujarat in exercise of its power under sec. 3 (1) read with sec. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 3 ) MR. K. G. Vakharia learned Advocate for the petitioner raised various contentions in support of the petition. However in our view one of the contentions canvassed by him goes to the root of the matter and consequently it does not become necessary for us to deal with other contentions. The contention which has appealed to us and on the basis of which this petition is required to be allowed is as under.

( 4 ) THE detaining authority has relied upon various grounds in support of the detention orders and they are listed at items No. 1 to 13 in the grounds of detention. At item No. 12 is found the ground to the effect that on 16-2-1986 when two samples were taken by the Food Inspector Rajkot from the stock of Kitchen Queen brand groundnut oil manufactured in the detenus mill it was found that the groundnut oil manufactured by the detenu was not upto the standard required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules and that showed that the detenu was indulging in manufacturing adulterated groundnut oil in his mill.

( 5 ) IT is vehemently contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the aforesaid ground is totally extraneous to the scope and ambit of sec. 3 of the Act under which the detention order can be passed against the concerned detenu and as such extraneous ground has entered the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and as there is no provision analogous to sec. 5a of the COFEPOSA in the present Act even though there might be other relevant grounds supporting the detention order the entire subjective satisfaction would fail on account of consideration of one extraneous ground and only on this short point the detention order is liable to be quashed.

( 6 ) MR. D. K. Trivedi learned Advocate for the respondents vehemently submitted before us that what is stated in ground No. 12 of the grounds of detention is in the first place not at all irrelevant or de hors the provisions of sec. 3 (1) of the Act. He alternatively contended that even assuming that ground No. 12 is extraneous in para 2 of the grounds of detention the detaining authority himself has stated that separate order of detention can be passed against the detenu on each and every ground mentioned in the grounds of detention and on that basis only one order has been passed against the detenu. It was therefore submitted that even if ground No. 12 is extraneous the detaining authority was satisfied independently of other grounds and therefore the detention order can be sustained on that separate satisfaction permeating rest of the grounds. In this connection. Mr. Trivedi submitted that in the preventive detention legislations like COFEPOSA where see. 5a