Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ.
Amirali Badruddin Lalani Through Nurulla Amirali Lalani - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 17475 of 2018
Decided On : 26-03-2025
(A) Prevention of the Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 - Section 3 - Detention order challenged - Petitioner detained for allegedly selling essential commodities in the open market - Delay in passing the detention order questioned - Court held that the delay vitiated the detention order and lacked rationality, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution - Detention order quashed. (Paras 1, 8, 16, 18)
(B) Detention under preventive laws - The authority must act promptly and demonstrate a live-link between prejudicial activities and the detention order - Delay without satisfactory explanation renders the order illegal. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, licensed to operate a fair price shop, was detained following irregularities in stock management and allegations of selling essential commodities illegally. The detention order was issued on 25.09.2018, after a significant delay from the registration of the FIR on 07.09.2018.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the delay in passing the detention order was excessive and lacked justification, making the order illegal.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the delay in the detention order invalidated the authority's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that prompt action is essential in detention matters, and undue delay calls into question the validity of the detention order.
Result: The detention order dated 25.09.2018 is quashed.
ORDER :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner – Amirali Badruddin Lalani, has challenged the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the respondent – District Magistrate, Amreli 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 petitioner detenue was accorded licence of fair price shop at village: Devada, Dhari, Amreli, whereby, he was authorized to sell essential commodities like wheat, rice, sugar etc.. On the basis of the complaint by the Coordinate committee, the authority concerned inspected the shop of the petitioner and during the inspection, material irregularities on the aspect of stock and maintaining the necessary protocols, found deficient. The authority had seized the kerosene oil as mentioned in the report and the outcome of the report was to the effect that, by doing mal-practice, the essential commodities meant for the society, were being sell in open market for financial benefit. On this aspect, the criminal complaint being CR No. 61 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 was being filed by the Executive Magistrate for the breach and violation of provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The District Magistrate, Amreli, after considering the entire material supplied by the sponsoring authority, satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential to the community, it is necessary to detain the petitioner who derived the gain from the said malpractice, which act of the petitioner 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, Amreli passed detention order dated 25.09.2018 and the same was executed upon the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Amreli, 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 petitioner preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of essentially commodities.
5. The detention order 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 was also informed along with the grounds of detention, etc.
6. Being aggrieved with the order impugned dated 25.09.2018, the present application has been filed.
7. We have heard learned counsel Mr. H. R. Prajapati for the petitioner and Mr. Jay Metha, learned AGP for the respondent – State.
8. Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner 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 25.09.2018, whereas the FIR under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the petitioner and others on 07.09.2018, as such there is a delay in passing the order of detention. That in absence of any complaint in the interregnum, the conclusion of the detaining authority that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner pr
Delay in passing a detention order under preventive laws renders it illegal if not justified, violating the constitutional right to timely review.
Detention orders must be issued promptly; undue delay without justification can render such orders illegal.
Preventive detention requires timely action and sufficient grounds; delays and lack of evidence can render such orders illegal.
Detention orders must be issued promptly; significant delays without new evidence render them illegal, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
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 in considering representations violate constitutional rights, rendering such orders illegal.
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 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.
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
