IMPORTANT POINT
Delays in preventive detention orders and representation consideration must be justified; otherwise, they violate constitutional rights and render the detention illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Ilesh J. Vora, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner – Parmar Natvarsinh Kesarisinh, has challenged the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the respondent – District Magistrate, Ahmedabad directing him to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of the Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “the PBM Act of 1980” for short).

2. The said order has been passed in purported exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub- clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act.

3. Brief facts giving rise to file the petition are that, the applicant detenue Parmar Natvarsinh was granted license with effect from 28.06.2006 for the purpose of running fair price shop at Bareja, Tal.: Dascroi, Dist.: Ahmedabad. The team comprising of the officers from the Food and Civil Supplied had visited and carried out inspection at the shop of the applicant on 30.09.2023. They noticed serious illegalities and irregularities in the stock of food grains like wheat, rice, salt etc. During the course of inspection it was further noticed that there was huge difference of the stock of food grains found in the software provided by the government and physical stock at the shop. The particulars of distribution of the food grains to the ration card holders are found to be false and bogus and the persons who were shown as beneficiaries did not receive the food grains and all the persons who were shown as beneficiaries are bogus. The modus- operandi of the applicant was that by showing false and bogus names of beneficiaries, the stocks of the food grains being shown as sold but in reality, it was not distributed at the end users and was stored at the shop for its black marketing for the personal gain. Thus, the authority found that, the act of the applicant was in violation of the provision of the Essential Commodities Act and the controlled order. The authority had lodged the FIR on 02.10.2023 against the applicant under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. After due in-depth inquiry, the material to this effect was put before the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad for passing a detention order. The authority after considering the material supplied by the sponsoring authority came to the conclusion that the activities of the applicant was actively involved in black marketing of the controlled food grains and despite of offence registered against him, there is all possibility that he will continue this activities even after he is released by the Court and therefore, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies to the commodities essential to the community, the detention of the applicant under the aforesaid act is necessary so as to protect the interest of the society at large.

4. In the aforesaid set of circumstances, by exercising powers under Section 3(1) of the PBM Act of 1980, the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad passed detention order dated 11.03.2024 and the same was executed upon the applicant.

5. The applicant made a representation to the State as well as Central Government on 22.03.2024 and same was decided by the State on 08.04.2024.

6. The present petition challenging the detention order has been preferred thereafter on 01.04.2024.

7. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Maharshi Patel for M/s. H.L. Patel Advocates for the applicant and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned AGP for the respondent – State.

8. Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the applicant detenue, made the following submissions :

(A) That there is a delay in passing the order of detention, which is evident from the order of the detention itself as the same was passed on 11.03.2024, whereas the FIR under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the applicant and others on 21.10.2023. That in absence of any complaint in the interregnum, the conclusion of