D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) ). Through this petition, under Art. 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 5-9- 1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Mehsana, under Sec. 3 (2) of the prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential commodities Act, 1980, and has prayed that the aforesaid detention order be quashed and he be released from illegal detention.

( 2 ) ). Brief facts are that the petitioner is holding Government approved fair price shop in the name of Patel Bachubhai Popatlal, Nagalpur village in Mehsana district, and is carrying on trade of the stock of food-grain, sugar, wheat, rice, edible oil and kerosene through fair price shop. The Mamlatdar, Mehsana made casual inspection of fair price shop on 19-8-1998 and it was found that the petitioner had sold in black market seven quintal of levy sugar directly out of 12 quintal levy sugar lifted through Bill No. 1554 dated 19-8-1998. Thereafter, supply Inspector, Mehsana made detailed inspection for the period between 25-8-1998 on 31-8-1998. It was found that the petitioner was indulging in black marketing activity and profiteering activities in distribution and supply of essential commodities such as levy sugar, wheat, rice and palmolin oil meant for public distribution system. The details of irregularities in the manner in which the black marketing activity was continued and committed by the petitioner are given in the grounds of detention. In para 10 of the grounds of detention black marketing activities of the petitioner in kerosene were also highlighted inasmuch as against fixed price of Rs. 2. 70 ps. per litre the petitioner was charging Rs. 15. 00 for five ltrs. of kerosene. Further details regarding this activity are also indicated clearly in the grounds of detention. Alternative remedies were considered which were found to be inefficacious. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention was passed.

( 3 ) ). The detention order has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on various grounds.

( 4 ) ). The first contention has been that the report submitted by the State government to the Central Government was not at all considered by the Central government which has vitiated the impugned order of detention. Reliance was placed upon the Full Bench pronouncement of Gauhati High Court in Hitendra nath v. State of Assam, reported in 1984 Cri. LJ 1558. Shri B. T. Rao, learned counsel representing the Union of India has frankly argued that the verdict of the full Bench of Gauhati High Court is not correct. Such submission can be made from the Bar, but this Court cannot agree to this contention. It is true that under the doctrine of judicial precedent the verdict of another High Court, may be of full Bench, has only persuasive value and it is not binding upon another High court. If decision of another High Court has persuasive value, it certainly means that it is entitled to respect and not to disrespect. Even if such decision is not binding on this Court it can exclude consideration of such decision by distinguishing it on facts that it does not apply to the facts of the case. However, that course is also not open because this very question was directly involved before the Full Bench of the Gauhati High Court whether the report sent by the state Government is required to be considered by the Central Government or not. It was clearly observed in the aforesaid case in Para 21 that the Central government has to consider the report with reasonable expedition notwithstanding that no representation has been made by the detenu to the Central Government. It has to apply its mind to it keeping in view the policy and objects of the Act. Parliament intended that Central Government could also keep a vigilant eye in the matter of life and liberty of the citizen guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, according to the Full Bench of the Gauhati High Court the report sent by the Stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document