Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, VIMAL K. VYAS, JJ.
Prashant Shashikant Maru Through Shashikant Maru
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors.
R/Special Civil Application No. 6370 Of 2024
Decided On : 24-06-2024
Detention - Preventive Detention - PBM Act 1980, Section 3 - The court found that the delay of 11 months in passing the detention order rendered it illegal, as it violated the principles of prompt action required under the PBM Act and Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a detention order under the PBM Act, alleging misappropriation of essential commodities while employed as a computer operator. The order was based on an FIR registered 11 months prior, raising concerns about the delay in detention.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the delay of 11 months in passing the detention order lacked rationality and violated the principles of preventive detention, leading to the quashing of the order.
Issues: Whether the detention order passed by the District Magistrate under the PBM Act is sustainable in law given the significant delay in its issuance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that prompt action is essential in preventive detention cases, and undue delay can invalidate the detention order.
Result: The detention order dated 07.02.2024 is quashed, and the petitioner is to be released forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
(Ilesh J. Vora, J.) :
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner – Prashant Shashikant Maru, has challenged the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the respondent – District Magistrate, Porbandar 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 was employed as a outsource Computer Operator to look after the affairs of essential commodities and its distribution under the jurisdiction of District Porbandar, State of Gujarat.The essential commodities like wheat, rise, etc. Essential to the community to be supplied through Public Distribution System (“PDS” for short), had been stored in different godowns under the jurisdiction of Porbandar District. The applicant was in charge of issuing on-line gate pass etc. The Government noticed some irregularities in the stock maintained at the godown place. It is alleged that during 01.01.2020 to 04.01.2023, the applicant along with the other state government employees in connivance with the transporters and other persons misappropriated the huge stocks of food grains of Rs.99,77,599/- for their personal gains which has directly affect the supply of essential commodities. After in depth inquiry made by the State Government, the FIR came to be lodged with Ranavav Police Station, Porbandar for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 406, 409, 120B, 465, 467, 471 and 477A of the IPC. The said FIR was registered on 13.01.2023, against 12 persons. The applicant herein was arrested on 28.01.2023 and later on he was enlarged on bail. The Porbandar, DSP made a proposal to detain the applicant and others under the PBM Act of 1980. The District Magistrate, Porbandar, after considering the entire material supplied by the sponsoring authority, satisfied that with a view to preventing the applicant from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential to the community, it is necessary to detain the applicant who derived the gain from the said malpractice, which act of the applicant defeat the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act.
4. In the aforesaid set of circumstances, by exercising powers under Section 3(1) of the PBM Act of 1980, the District Magistrate, Porbandar passed detention order dated 07.02.2024 and the same was executed upon the applicant. The District Magistrate, Porbandar, after consideration the entire circumstances and the documentary evidence was of the opinion that mere registration of the FIR against the detenue would not effectively prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of food grains and further, opined that after releasing on bail, it quite possible that the detenue will continue with the illegal and antisocial activities and it is imperative for the effective measures to detain the applicant preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of essentially commodities.
5. The detention order dated 07.02.2014 was intimated to the State Government along with the grounds on which the order was made and the State Government has approved the order impugned. The Central Government vide communication dated 19.02.2024 was also informed along with the grounds of detention, etc.
6. Being aggrieved with the order impugned dated 07.02.2024, the present application has been filed.
7. We have heard learned counsel Mr.Pranav U. Raval for the applicant and Ms. Shruti Pathak, learned AGP for the respondent – State.
8. Mr. Raval learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the applicant detenue, made the fol
Undue delay in passing a detention order under the PBM Act can render the order illegal, violating constitutional rights.
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 representation consideration 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.
Delays in preventive detention orders and in considering representations must be justified; otherwise, they violate constitutional rights and render the detention illegal.
Detention orders must be issued promptly; undue delay without justification can render such orders illegal.
Delays in preventive detention orders and in considering representations violate constitutional rights, rendering such orders illegal.
Delay in passing a detention order under preventive laws renders it illegal if not justified, violating the constitutional right to timely review.
The necessity for swift action and sufficient evidence in cases of preventive detention under the Essential Commodities Act.
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
