( 1 ) THE petitioner has been detained pursuant to the order dated 5/03/1988 passed by the District Magistrate Bharuch under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ). The order has been passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.

( 2 ) IN the grounds of detention it is disclosed that the petitioner was running a fair-price shop at village Kavitha Taluka-Bharuch in respect of which the licence was issued in the name of one Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel. The petitioner himself posed to be Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel before the public as well as before the relevant Government Officers. LIe has signed as Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel in various Government records and in the records maintained for purposes of running fair-price shop. Thus he misrepresented before the people by impersonation and committed the offence of cheating the people as well as the Government. The fair-price shop was raided and searched between February 19 and February 26 1988 In respect of essential commodities such as pamolene oil rice sugar wheat etc. the stock-registers were not properly maintained and the stock was not in accordance with the registers. Eight false bills were issued in the name of fictitious persons as far as food for all scheme is concerned while in the scheme or public distribution of food even false bills were issued in respect of sugar pamolene oil and rice. Several irregularities of similar nature were found and the same are mentioned in the grounds of detention. It is not necessary to refer to all of them for the purposes of deciding this petition Suffice it to say that as mentioned in the grounds of detention it is disclosed that while running fair-price shop by impersonation as Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel the petitioner is alleged to have committed several offences for breach of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licence Regulation and Declaration of Stocks Order 1981 and is also alleged to have committed offence under Secs. 416 and 417 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner-detenu has been served with the grounds of detention and copies of document on which reliance was placed by the detaining authority.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no material with the detaining authority to show that the alleged irregularities wore committed with a view to making gain. In her submission the provisions of Sec. 3 (1) of the Act read with the explanation required that the alleged irregularities should have been committed with a view to making gain. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance is placed on the decision of this High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 1110 of 1986 decided on 23/12/1985 (Coram: D. C. Gheewala and J. P. Desai JJ. a short note of the aforesaid judgment has been reported in Dineshkumar Kantilal v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1987 (1) GLH (UJ-13) page 11 ). In that case the accused had sold 257 oil tins without issuing bills. The detaining authority either in the order passed by it or in the grounds nowhere mentioned that he had satisfied himself that the aforesaid illegal activity was with a view to making gain. Since there was no material with the detaining authority on the basis of which he could have come to the conclusion that the detenu had committed the alleged acts with a view to making gain the order of detention was quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the aforesaid decision does not help the petitioner. The explanation to Sec. 3 (1) of the Act defines the phrase acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community occuring in Sec. 3 (1 ). The explanation reads as follows:"for the purposes of this sub-section th