The main legal point established in the judgment is the justification of preventive detention under the NSA based on the impact of black marketing on 'public order' during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ORDER :

(Sujoy Paul, J.) :

1. This petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order of District Magistrate, Gwalior dated 14.05.2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner is detained in exercise of power under section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 (NSA Act).

2. In nutshell, the contention of the petitioner as projected by the counsel is that the petitioner is an advocate practicing at Seoni and Indore. The petitioner was called by the Special Task Force, Chindwara from where he was taken by the said force to Gwalior. A false case is lodged against the petitioner at Gwalior. The petitioner purchased Remdesivir injections for treatment of his father-in-law. Later on, his father-in-law died because of Corona. The CT scan report, death certificate and medical documents are filed as Annexure P/2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Para 4 of the impugned order shows that the same is passed without application of mind. The reasons assigned in para 4 are without any basis. The report of Superintendent of Police does not contain any such reason, which became basis for detention as per para 4 of the detention order dated 14.05.2021.

4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per recent judgment of this Court in the case of Yatindra Verma Vs. State of MP and Others passed in WP No.9792/2021 dated 24.06.2021, the petitioner is similarly situated in as much as the petitioner therein was a social worker/politician, whereas, in the instant case, the petitioner is a practicing advocate. Hence, detention of petitioner is bad in law.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General supported the impugned order and contended that indisputably para 4 of the impugned order dated 14.05.2021 is erroneous and is erroneously pasted. As per the return, STF Police Station, Gwalior got information regarding black marketing of Remdesivir injections. In turn, the petitioner was arrested and 5 Remdesivir injections were recovered from him. An FIR in crime no.16/2020 under section 420, 188 of the IPC, 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and 3 of the Pandemic Act was duly registered at Police Station STF on 08.05.2021. Further investigation is going on.

6. As per the report of Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, the District Magistrate took necessary steps and invoked NSA Act against the petitioner. During the pandemic era, there was severe scarcity of the said injection and the petitioner's conduct became a threat to the maintenance of 'public order'. Hence, the impugned order was passed. The ground of detention and intimation regarding detention order was duly served on the petitioner on 14.05.2021 (Annexure R/3). Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court in WP No.4499/2021 (Kalla @ Surendra Jat Vs. State of MP and others) decided on 09.04.2021.

7. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. During the course of hearing, on a specific question raised from the bench, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that he erroneously stated that the medical documents filed by him are related to the father-in-law of the petitioner. Para 5.4 of the petitioner shows that the petitioner is unmarried. In reply to another question from the bench, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that his contention is that article 22 of the Constitution of India is infringed because the petitioner is an advocate and he cannot be detained in this manner under the NSA Act. To this extent, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Yatindra Verma (supra).

9. The respondents by filing additional counter affidavit, clearly averred that the stand of the petitioner that he was called by the STF, Chhindwara from where he was taken by the said force to Gwalior is factually incorrect. The petitioner has been arrested at Gwalior itself.

10. Indisputably, para 4 of the impugned order dated