JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. Draft Amendment is allowed. The Amendment as per the Draft Amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

2. Since the issue is squarely covered by the judgment dated 12.04.2023 passed in Special Civil Application No.6176 of 2023 in the case of co-detenue, the matters are taken up for final hearing today.

3. Rule was already issued by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2023 in the aforesaid matter.

4. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the detaining authority, in exercise of powers under Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, with a view to prevent them from acting in prejudicial manner to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has mainly argued that though the order of detention is bad in law, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void, he would submit 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.

5.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the order of detention is passed mechanically and without there being any material to come to the conclusion that the petitioner will be released on bail by the any other court and after releasing the petitioner will continue to commit the alleged activity. It is humbly submitted that the detaining authority has not recorded any such satisfaction at the time of passing the order of detention and as per grounds of detention, the detaining authority fail to mention role of present petitioner and therefore subjective satisfaction is missing fact no such role is attributed to petitioner and said facts is not verify by investigation officer as well as detaining authority, therefore it is very clear that the orders of detention is passed without application of mind and in mechanical manner. Hence the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

5.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR, but arrested on the statement of co-accused. He has submitted that the petitioner is also not found with custody of any such prohibited goods. On the contrary, it is alleged that the petitioner has played role in arranging the same but on perusal of record, there is no material to substantiate the same but only on assumption and presumption the order of detention came to be passed. It is submitted that as per record (detention order), not a single evidence collected by the investigation officer, which indicate that the present petitioner was selling the "Neem coated urea" or they have supplied the said material to any of the co- accused. It is further submitted that before execution of PBM order, the petitioner has been released on regular bail on 23.03.2023 by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat and therefore the detaining authority ought not to have passed the order of detention considering this offence as material and therefore, looking to the above fact and circumstances, it appears that the petitioner has been targeted by the detaining authority.

5.3. It is submitted that the investigation officer as well as detaining authority ought have considered the aspect that the petitioner is not at all involved in business of selling "Neem coated urea" nor they have any license for "Neem coated urea". 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, pass the order of detention and therefore the order of detention is non application of mind an