Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ.
Kishorbhai Arjanbhai Bhanushali - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 2156 of 2016
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 under Article 226 - Petitioner detained for alleged unauthorized stock of essential commodities - Delay in passing detention order and lack of evidence of continued illegal activities questioned - Court found violation of Article 22(5) and quashed detention order. (Paras 1, 12, 14, 15)
(B) Preventive Detention - Necessity of timely action and sufficient grounds - Delay in execution of detention order and failure to show ongoing illegal activities rendered the detention order illegal. (Paras 8, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retailer, was detained under the PBM Act for allegedly storing essential commodities illegally. The detention order was issued following an FIR for offenses under the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner challenged the order citing delays and lack of evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the detention order was not executed in a reasonable time and lacked sufficient grounds, thus violating constitutional protections.
Issues: The main issue was whether the detention order was sustainable given the delay and lack of evidence of ongoing illegal activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detention order was illegal due to violation of constitutional rights and lack of timely action by the authorities.
Result: The detention order dated 16.12.2013 is quashed.
ORDER :
ILESH J. VORA, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner – Kishorbhai Arjanbhai Bhanushali, has challenged the order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the respondent – District Magistrate, Navsari 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 Kishor Bhanushali was the retailer of the food grains and doing his business in the name of ‘National Traders’ at Navsari. According to report dated 28.11.2013, it was learnt that the petitioner was found in unauthorized stock of food grains, which was essential commodities like rice, wheat etc. The excess stocks as per the report alleged to have been purchased from Madhya Pradesh, whereby, the petitioner was involved in unauthorized storage and pilferage of essential commodities meant for public distribution system and thereby, acted in a manner which is harmful to maintenance and distribution of essential commodities to the public at large. After in depth inquiry made by the State Government, the FIR came to be lodged with Chikhli Police Station, Valsad for the offences mentioned therein. The said FIR was registered on 05.12.2013. The petitioner herein was arrested on 05.12.2013 and later on he was enlarged on bail. The District Magistrate, Navsari, 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, Navsari passed detention order dated 16.12.2013 and the same was executed upon the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Navsari, 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 dated 16.12.2013 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.
6. Being aggrieved with the order impugned dated 16.12.2013, the present application has been filed.
7. We have heard learned counsel Mr. H. R. Prajapati for the petitioner and Mr. Jay Mehta, 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 16.12.2013, whereas the FIR under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act was registered against the petitioner and others on 05.12.2013, as such there is a delay of 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 prejudicial
Preventive detention requires timely action and sufficient grounds; delays and lack of evidence can render 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.
Detention orders must be issued promptly; undue delay without justification 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.
The right to make an effective representation is fundamental, and failure to provide legible documents violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
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
