IMPORTANT POINT
Delays in preventive detention orders and in considering representations violate constitutional rights, rendering such orders illegal.

JUDGMENT :

(Ilesh J. Vora, J.) :

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner – Memon Javedbhai Hanifbhai, has challenged the order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the respondent – District Magistrate, Sabarkantha 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 Memon Javedbhai Hanifbhai is in business of food grains, doing his business in the name and style ‘National Traders’ at Idar, Dist.: Himmatnagar. The Civil Supply Department, made an inspection on the business premises on 03.02.2024 and 04.02.2024. There was illegal quantity of fortified rice found during the inspection. The same was seized and later on under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, the quantity approximately 19020 Kg. came to be confiscated. It is alleged that, the fortified rice found from the shop of the applicant was meant to be distributed to the consumer through Public Distribution System (“PDS” for short). The applicant did not have produced the invoices of purchase of the said rice and the invoice, which he had produced, was forged and bogus. In such circumstances, the FIR under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act came to be filed on 05.02.2024. The District Magistrate, Himmatnagar after considering the material placed before him, arrived at the conclusion that, the applicant was actively involved in black marketing of the controlled rice and there is all possibility that after registration of the offence, he would indulge in the said activities for his personal gains and therefore, with a view to preventing 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, Sabarkantha passed detention order dated 04.05.2024 and the same was executed upon the applicant.

5. The applicant made a representation to the State as well as Central Government on 09.05.2024.

6. The present petition challenging the detention order has been preferred thereafter on 11.05.2024.

7. We have heard learned counsel Mr. H. R. Prajapati for the applicant and Mr. L. B. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent – State.

8. Mr. Prajapati, 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 04.05.2024, whereas the FIR under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the applicant and others on 05.02.2024. That in absence of any complaint in the interregnum, the conclusion of the detaining authority that it was necessary to detain the applicant with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance to the supplies of the commodities essential to the community has no rationality and there is no material placed before the authority to show that applicant would indulge in future in such kind of activities and therefore, while passing the order, the authority did not apply its mind and in a mechanical manner, without any material, the order was passed.

(B) That the grounds for detention has no nexus with the expression “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community” as explained under Section 3 of Act of PBM 1980 and therefore, where