Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
S.K. Gangele and Brij Kishore Dube, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Anr.
Writ Petition No. 2889 of 2010
Decided On: 11.05.2011
Headnote:National Security Act, 1980 -- Ss.3(2) and 14 -- accused found involved in business of manufacturing synthetic Ghee for quite a long time -- earned huge money from this -- number of raids conducted at his factory premises -- also convicted and sentenced by CJM, Sheopur -- huge quantity of synthetic Ghee seized at one raid -- Chief Medical and Health Officer, Gwalior, recommended for taking action against him under 5.3(2) -- Collector also observed the danger to the life and health of thousands of citizens -- District Magistrate, Gwalior passed a detention order of accused under 5.3(2) -- accused absconded just after such order -- submitted the representation before the Union of India to revoke this order -- Union of India revoked it without application of mind -- did not assign any reasons -- no opportunity of hearing given to the State -- Union of India had no knowledge of accused being absconded -- did not consider the facts of the case in detail -- also did not consider the gravity and seriousness of the offence -- has failed utterly in its duty -- consequently, the order of revocation of the detention order quashed.
Held: The power given to the Central Government is independent to the power of the State in order to safeguard the liberty of a citizen but at the same time the larger interest of citizens be also kept in mind. After perusal of the order, in our opinion, the authority failed to perform its duty. It had no knowledge of vital fact that the respondent No.2 was absconding.
We do not want to comment about merits of the detention order because prima facie we have satisfied that the Union of India, respondent No.1 has revoked the order without application of mind. In our opinion, it is the duty of the Union of India to consider the facts in detail before passing the order of revocation of the order of detention and also consider the grievousness of the conduct of the detenu. In the present case, the District Magistrate has clearly observed that due to the activities of respondent No.2 when there was a danger to the life and health of the millions of citizens. In such circumstances, the duty to consider all the relevant facts before revocation of the order of detention was more heavy on the part of the Union of India and we are constrained to observe that the prescribed authority has failed utterly in its duty.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order, Annexure P-l is hereby quashed. (1989)1 SCC 420, AIR 1963 SC 677, (2005)5 SCC 181, (2010)9 SCC 496 and AIR 1981 SC 2230 followed. [Paras 18, 19 & 20
jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3¼2½ rFkk 14 && vfHk;qDr yacs le; ls d`f=e ?kh ds fuekZ.k ds dkjckj esa fyIr ik;k x;k && blls vR;f/kd /ku vftZr fd;k && mlds dkj[kkuk ifjlj esa vusd Nkis && eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] ‘;ksiqj }kjk mls fl)nks"k Hkh Bgjk;k x;k rFkk naMkfn"V Hkh fd;k x;k && ,d Nkis esa d`f=e ?kh dh cM+h ek=k vfHkxzghr && Xokfy;j ds eq[; fpfdRlk rFkk LokLF; vf/kdkjh us mlds fo:) fo:) /kkjk 3¼2½ ds v/khu dkjZokbZ djus dh flQkfj‘k dh && dyDVj us Hkh gtkjksa ukxfjdksa ds thou rFkk LokLF; ds [krjs dh leqfDr dh && ftyk eftLVªsV] Xokfy;j us /kkjk 3¼2½ ds v/khu vfHk;qDr dk fujks/k vkns‘k ikfjr fd;k && bl vkns‘k ds rqjar i‘pkr~ vfHk;qDr Qjkj && bl vkns‘k dks izfrlaâr djus ds fy, Hkkjr la?k ds le{k vH;kosnu izLrqr fd;k && Hkkjr la?k us fcuk euksfu;ksx ds bls izfrlaâr fd;k && dksbZ dkj.k ugha crk, && jkT; dks lquokbZ dk dksbZ volj ugha fn;k && Hkkjr la?k dks vfHk;qDr ds Qjkj gksus dh tkudkj ugha && foLrkj ls ekeys ds rF;ksa ij fopkj ugha fd;k && vijk/k dh ?kksjrk rFkk xaHkhjrk ij Hkh fopkj ugha fd;k && vius dRrZO; esa iw.kZr vlQy && ifj.kkeLo:i] fujks/k vkns‘k dks izfrlaâr djus dk vkns‘k vfHk[kafMrA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % dsUnz ljdkj dks nh xbZ ‘kfDr ukxfjd dh Lora=rk dh j{kk djus ds fy, jkT; dh ‘kfDr ls Lora= gS ijarq mlh le; ukxfjdksa dk O;kid fgr Hkh /;ku esa j[kk tkuk gSA vkns‘k ds ifj‘khyu ds i‘pkr~] gekjh jk; esa] izkf/kdkjh vius dRrZO; dk ikyu djus esa vlQy jgsA bls bl egRoiw.kZ rF; dh tkudkjh ugha fd izR;FkhZ dz- 2 Qjkj FkkA
ge fujks/k vkns‘k ds xq.kkxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh ugha djuk pkgrs D;ksafd gekjk lek/kku gS fd Hkkjr la?k] izR;FkhZ dz- 1 us vkns‘k fcuk eukfu;ksx ds izfrlaâr fd;k gSA gekjh jk; esa] fujks/k vkns‘k dk izfrlagj.k vkns‘k ikfjr djus ds iwoZ foLrkjiwoZd rF;ksa ij fopkj djuk rFkk fu:) ds vkpj.k dh ?kksjrk ij Hkh fopkj djuk Hkkjr la?k dk dRrZO; gSA izLrqr ekeys esa] ftyk eftLVªsV us Li"V :i ls leqfDr nh fd izR;FkhZ dz- 2 dh xfrfof/k;ksa ds dkj.k yk[kksa ukxfjdksa ds thou rFkk LokLF; dks [krjk FkkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] Hkkjr la?k dk drZO; vkSj vf/kd Hkkjh Fkk rFkk ge ;g leqfDr nsus ij etcwj gS fd fofgr izkf/kdkjh vius dRrZO; esa iw.kZr vlQy gq, gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i] ;kfpdk eatwj dh tkrh gSA vkf{kIr vkns‘k] mikca/k ih&1 ,rn~}kjk vfHk[kafMr fd;k tkrk gSA ¼1989½1 ,l lh lh 420] , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 677] ¼2005½5 ,l lh lh 181] ¼2010½9 ,l lh lh 496 rFkk , vkb vkj 1981 ,l lh 2230 vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 18] 19 ,oa 20½
S.K. Gangele, J.
1. Though Respondent No. 2 has been served, no body has filed power on behalf of Respondent. Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and he argued upto some length. Thereafter, he submitted that Respondent No. 2 wants to file reply. However, from record it transpires that Respondent No. 2 deliberately has not filed reply though notice was served on him on 24.01.2011. In our opinion, this has deliberately been done to delay the decision of the petition. Looking to the nature of the case that detention of Respondent No. 2 under the National security Act, 1980 has been cancelled by the Union of India vide impugned order, Annexure P-1, hence, petition has been heard and disposed of finally.
2. Petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 08.12.2009, Annexure P-1, passed by the Union of India.
3. District Magistrate, Gwalior passed a detention order of Respondent No. 2 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1980'. It has been mentioned in the order that he is satisfied that the activities of Respondent No. 2 are prejudicial to maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, hence, detention of Respondent No. 2 is necessary under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1980 and the grounds of detention are mentioned in the order dated 13.10.2009, Annexure P-2. It has been mentioned in the order that Respondent No. 2 was in the business of manufacturing synthetic Ghee in the factory, named, as Hind Dairy and Food Products, B-58, Industrial Area, Maharajpura, District Gwalior and due to the aforesaid act of the Respondent No. 2 there was danger to the health of the resident consumers. It has further been mentioned that no body was willing to lodge report against Respondent No. 2 because he had created terror and fear in the area. Respondent No. 2 had earned huge money from the aforesaid business and raids were conducted on number of times at the factory premises of Respondent No. 2 and samples were taken and sent to State Food Laboratory, Bhopal and the samples of Ghee seized from the factory premises of Respondent No. 2 were found adulterated / synthetic and he had been continuously manufacturing synthetic Ghee, due to which there was danger to the health of the society and looking to possible unrest and Law and Order problem detention of Respondent No. 2 is necessary.
4. It has further been stated in the grounds of detention that due to synthetic Ghee the health of the citizens had been adversely affected. Respondent No. 2 was manufacturing synthetic Ghee in the name of 'Shri Anmol' and 'Gwala-Shri' brands and samples were sent in November 2008 to State Food Laboratory, Bhopal, where it was found below-standard and synthetic Ghee and the District Magistrate vide order dated 15.10.2008 found Respondent No. 2 guilty under Section 188 IPC.
5. It has further been stated that on 03.10.2009 the District Administration inspected the factory premises, Hind Dairy and Food Products, Industrial Area, Maharajpura of Respondent No. 2 and in the inspection 8380 liters of synthetic Ghee was found. Thereafter, samples had been taken and they were sent for analysis to State Food Laboratory, Bhopal and a case under Sections 420 and 188 IPC was also registered against him. The samples of Anmol Brand sent to State Food Laboratory for analysis were found below standard. The Respondent No. 2 was also convicted in a Criminal Case No. 327/95 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheopur vide order dated 13.01.2005 and awarded a sentence of one years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300/-. In another case, Criminal Case No. 10/95 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheopur vide order dated 13.01.1995 imposed a sentence of one year's imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300/-. It has further been observed that Respondent No. 2 had been continuously doing the business of manufacturing synthetic Ghee, hence, the detention
