( 1 ) THE petitioner-detenu has filed the present petition against the impugned order of detention passed against him by the District Magistrate Bhavnagar on 2-6-1988 under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act 1980 The petitioner was served with the order as also ground of detention on the same day i. e. 2-6-1988.

( 2 ) ON persual of the grounds it appears that the present petitioner was managing the fair price shop in Bhavnagar locality of Bhavnagar City which was standing in the name of Jikarbhai Ahmedbhai Saiyed. On 5-5-1988 the Supply Inspector made a surprise visit to the said shop and inspected the same. During the inspection it was found that the opening stock of pamolene oil in the stock register was shown as six barrels i. e. 1140 kgs. while in the presence of Panchas when it was ascertained it was found that the stock was of 760 ks. i. e. only four barrels and therefore there was a deficit of 380 kgs. i. e. two barrels of pamolene. Before the Supply Inspector the petitioner had stated that he had taken the stock of six barrels from the godown of the Corporation but the remaining two barrels were not delivered by the labourer Narubhai Sindhi till late in the evening. He had also stated in his statement of 5-5-1988 that he was managing the said shop. Jikarbhai who is the licencee of the said fair price shop has supported the version of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was managing the said shop in his statement dated 8-5-1988.

( 3 ) THE statement of Narubhai Lalchand was also recorded on 5 wherein he has clearly stated that on 4-5-1988 he has delivered all the six barrels of pamolene oil to the petitioner. According to him he had taken six barrels from the godown of the Corporation in two instalments inasmuch as it was not possible for him to take six barrels at a time in a three whether tempo. According to him first he delivered four barrels and thereafter he delivered two barrels at the said shop. Even search was made at the residence of said Narubhai in the presence of the Panchas but neither any tin nor any barrel containing pamolene was found. It is also pointed out in the grounds that the petitioner was not in a position to explain as to why there was deficit of two barrels of pamolene in the actual stock when he had already credited six barrels in the stock register. It is also pointed out in the grounds that he was a dealer within the definition given under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licence Control and Stock Declaration) Order 198 1

( 4 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid material the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner has abetted on the manager of the said shop in committing offence under Secs. 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act.

( 5 ) IN the grounds of detention it is also pointed out that the petitioners activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodities essential to the community. With a view preventing the petitioner the detaining authority has also considered departmental action as well as prosecution against the petitioner but ultimately the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that such actions cannot stop the petitioners illegal activities and hence the order of detention came to be passed against the petitioner.

( 6 ) IN this petition various grounds have Seen raised challenging the validity and legality of the impugned detention order. However Mr. Chinoy the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has pressed before us the following points: (1) That there was delay in reporting to the Central Government about the detention as required under Sec. 3 (4) of the Act; (2) That there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the less drastic remedies; (3) That there is no material to arrive at the subjective satisfaction for detaining the petitioner-detenu; (4) That though the petitioner-detenu has made a repr