ORDER

Abhyankar, J. -- 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the order of detention dated 5.10.2021, passed by the Respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Indore whereby,while exercising its power under section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1980) the petitioner’s son Ajay Sagar has been detained for a period of six months (although in the impugned order the period is not specified).

2. The petition has been filed at the instance of the mother of the detune Ajay Sagar.

3. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.4/Station House Officer, Police Station Aazad Nagar, Indore, on a complaint made by Mahadev Muvel, Junior Supply Officer, Collector Office (Food) registered the FIR dated 29.9.2021, at Crime No.663/2021 for offences punishable under sections 420, 120-B and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3 & 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the E.C. Act). It was alleged in the FIR that a joint inspection team searched the premises of M/s Palak Agro Industry Rice Mill situated at Nemawar Road, wherein a vehicle bearing registration No. MP 09 LQ 9735 was spotted. In the aforesaid vehicle 40 bags filled with foodgrain were also found. It transpired that out of these 40 bags, 30 bags were bought from a fair price shop and thus, on 27.9.2021 the detenu’s shop by the name and style Ahirkhedi Mahila Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar having Code No.08016060 was also searched wherein the detenu informed the team that co-accused Mamta is the President and Anshulika is the salesperson of the aforesaid shop. In the aforesaid search, it was found that the accounts of the shop were not kept in order as no sale register was maintained. Pursuant thereto, on 5.10.2021, the respondent No. 5 i.e. In-charge District Supply Controller, Indore informed the respondent No.2 about the alleged offences committed by the accused persons. Acting upon which, while exercising its power conferred under sections 3 (1) & 3(2) of the Act of 1980, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 5.10.2021, directing detention of the detenu for an unspecified period.

4. Shri Manu Maheshwari, counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order inter alia on the ground that the impugned order has not been passed by the District Magistrate and in fact it has been passed by Ms. Pratibha Pal, who was posted as the Municipal Commissioner, Indore and was given the temporary charge of the District Magistrate, Indore, for a period from 28.9.2021 to 5.10.2021 i.e. for a period of 08 days only as a stopgap arrangement.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards an office order dated 27.9.2021, issued by the Chief Secretary, State Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal wherein the aforesaid order of allocation of power has been passed in favour of Ms. Pratibha Pal, who was posted as the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Indore at the relevant time. Thus, it is submitted that merely if an additional charge of District Magistrate has been given to a person, he/she cannot exercise and invoke the powers conferred on a District Magistrate under the Act of 1980 to pass the order of detention.

6. In support of his submissions that a person who is holding the additional charge cannot pass an order of detention as the provisions of the Adhiniyam have to be strictly construed., Shri Maheshwari has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab reported as AIR 1965 SC 1619, Girja Shankar Shukla v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Harda reported as AIR 1973 MP 104 , Ram Ratan Balchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported as AIR 1964 MP 114, Amit Agarwal v . Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported as (2007) 1 Gau LR 313 , Rina T. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya reported as (2005) Gau L