JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

Leave to amend.

1. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 15.05.2023 passed by the respondent–District Magistrate, Surat, in exercise of powers under Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, by which he has been detained with a view to prevent him from acting in prejudicial manner to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community.

2. Learned Advocate, Mr.Dholakia for the petitioner has mainly argued that though the order of detention is bad in law, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void, he would submit that on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in recording his subjective satisfaction for passing the detention order. He submitted that in absence of any material which would satisfy the Authority, who has passed the impugned order, it is totally non- application of mind on the part of the Authority. It is respectfully submitted that, the order of detention has been passed on 15.05.2023 on the basis of single FIR but if we look to the FIR and order passed by authority it is alleged that the petitioner is facilitated for transporting Urea in his godown and he is helping other accused in misappropriation of stock but looking to the table mentioned in the detention order there may be negligence in maintaining the stocks but no offence is committed by the petitioner nor anything comes on record that by which it can be said that the petitioner has misappropriated the stock and only on assumption and presumption the FIR came to be lodged and now considering those offences the petitioner came to be detained. It is submitted that the subordinate authority put a proposal with ready and prepared grounds before the detaining authority and without looking to the material placed before it, the authority has passed the order of detention and, therefore, the order of detention is non application of mind and without there being any material about black marketing. Therefore, the order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside.

2.2 Learned advocate Mr.Dholakia has further submitted that the detenu has already filed a representation against the order of detention but no action has been taken by the detaining authority on such representation. He submitted that rights conferred upon the detenu by Article 22, Clause (5) of the Constitution of India have been violated, firstly by not informing the grounds on which the order of detention has been passed, and secondly, by not deciding the representation made by the detenu against the order of detention. It is well settled that right to make a representation implies that the detenu should have all the information that will enable him to make an effective representation. Such a right of the detenu is subject to right or privileges given by Clause (3) of Article 22, but at the same time refusal to supply the relevant documents or supply of illegible or blur copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority is in violation of Article 22, Clause (5). He further submitted that it is also an admitted position that the detaining authority has placed reliance upon solitary offence against the detenu, wherein the detenu has already been released on bail by the competent Court. Said order is not challenged by the competent authority before appropriate forum.

2.3 It is submitted that looking to the order passed by the authority the authority has not supplied the legible copies of the all documents and some of the documents are illegible many of the documents are in English language and the petitioner was not having legal knowledge and therefore, because of that the petitioner could not make representation and hence, it is settled law that supply of illegible documents to a detenue would amount to non-communication of ground of det