Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. Kogje, Samir J. Dave, JJ.
Rathva Maheshkumar Raliyabhai – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 21030 of 2023
Decided On : 01-03-2024
Habeas Corpus - Detention under Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 - Section 3, Section 7 - The court discussed the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, particularly Section 3 and Section 7, and emphasized the requirement for swift action in cases of preventing activities detrimental to the supply of essential commodities. The court highlighted the lack of evidence and swift action in the case, ultimately leading to the quashing of the detention order.
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for following relief:-
2. The challenge is to the order of detention dated 02.12.2023, where the petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short “PBM Act”). According to the order of detention, the petitioner had indulged in siphoning of the food grains meant for general public.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was only a Manager in the Government godown at Taluka; Godhra, District: Panchmahal and the entire order of detention is based on the data which is showing certain discrepancies, but there is no evidence worth the name that the petitioner has resorted to selling of grains meant for public distribution system in open market for monetary gain.
3.1 Learned advocate submitted that though it is alleged that there is a violation of provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, but in fact, there is no FIR or complaint filed by the department against any breach including involving the petitioner nor the petitioner has been arrested in connection with such complaint. Therefore, in absence of any evidence of black marketing and there being no antecedent against the petitioner, there is no reason for the detaining authority to believe that the petitioner will be indulged in similar activities because of which the preventive detention laws will have to be applied to the petitioner.
3.2 Lastly, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has been issued with the show-cause notice under the prevention of Essential Commodities Act and petitioner has answered to such show-cause notice and thereafter, there is no other action against the petitioner and therefore, the detaining authority has not justified to preventively detain the petitioner.
3.3 The petitioner has thereafter relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Vahidbhai Saiyadbbhai Sheikh v/s. State of Gujarat and others, reported in, 2003 SCC Online Guj 145, particularly relying upon para-7.
3.4 Learned advocate has also relied upon the judgment dated 12.01.2024 rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.20946 of 2023, where also the Court has interfered with the order of detention passed under the similar set of circumstances.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has objected to the grant of petition by submitting that the detention order has given cogent reasons on the basis of which, the detaining authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is involved in unfair practice of siphoning of the grains meant for public distribution under the door step delivery. It is submitted that the order of detention indicates that there is discrepancies in the stocks with the stocks present in the godown and mentioned in the register maintained statutorily. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has tried to justify the order of detention by referring to the grounds mentioned in the order of detention which contained the explanation offered by the petitioner against each of the discrepancies and therefore, when the explanation for the discrepancies was found lacking, the conclusion was arrived at that a case of preventive detention is made out.
4.1 It is further submitted that though the detaining authority had an option to proceed against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, however, the detaining authority has felt that such proceeding w
The necessity for swift action and sufficient evidence in cases of preventive detention under the Essential Commodities Act.
The court emphasized the need for swift action and due process under the Essential Commodities Act, highlighting that preventive detention should not substitute the punishment required under the law.
Undue delay in passing a detention order under the PBM Act can render the order illegal, violating constitutional rights.
Delays in preventive detention orders and representation consideration must be justified; otherwise, they violate constitutional rights and render the detention illegal.
Detention orders must be issued promptly; significant delays without new evidence render them illegal, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Delays in preventive detention orders and representation consideration must be justified; otherwise, they violate constitutional rights and render the detention illegal.
Delays in preventive detention orders and in considering representations violate constitutional rights, rendering such orders illegal.
Delays in preventive detention orders and in considering representations must be justified; otherwise, they violate constitutional rights and render the detention illegal.
Undue delay in passing a detention order and in considering representations violates constitutional rights, rendering the detention illegal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
