ORDER

1. This writ petition by a detenu, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 6.1.2023 passed by District Magistrate District Bhind in exercise of powers under Clause (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Act'') to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community and with a view to making gain in any manner which tend to defeat the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2. Along with the order, petitioner has also been served with the grounds of detention on same date i.e. 6.1.2023 as well as other material; a detailed report with enclosures of District Supply Officer, district Bhind addressed to District Magistrate, District Bhind dated 5.1.2023.

3. On perusal of the documents supplied to the petitioner, it appears that about 12 quintals of rice, packed in 24 sacks (each containing 50 Kgs), bearing seal of MP Civil Supplies Corporation stitched and tagged in the name of M/s. Ganesh Trading Corporation, Bandha Road Gohad were found on the doorstep of the petitioner's house. It is alleged despite queries raised about the same, no explanation much less satisfactory explanation was given either by the petitioner or members residing in his house.

4. Under such circumstances, an opinion was formed that petitioner has indulged in black-marketing of essential commodities warranting action of detention against him under Clause (1) of section 3 of the Act.

5. Petitioner was detained in jail on 10.1.2023.

6. It further appears that information in that behalf was sent to the State Government on 12.1.2023 and the same was confirmed on 16.1.2023 as required under section 3 (3) of the Act. Thereafter, reference was made to the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Act. The Advisory Board has opined justifying the detention. Thereafter, the State Government has passed an order on 13.2.2023 that the petitioner shall remain under detention for six months w.e.f.11.1.2023.

7. The aforesaid facts are not disputed.

8. As such, the petitioner is in detention for about last four months.

9. Shri Prashant Sharma along-with Shri Akram Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner while taking exception to the impugned action and also that of the order passed on 13.2.2023 has submitted that it is the settled law that the competent authority while exercising powers under the Act in the matter of ordering detention of a person, is required to record its satisfaction based on relevant material. The word ''consideration'' used in the relevant provision connotes the concept of meaningful consideration and not a mere formation of opinion simplicitor. The record suggests that the competent authority formed the opinion to pass the impugned order in hot-haste and a slipshod manner inasmuch as without verification of the factum of possession of the alleged number of sacks of rice found on the doorstep of the house of petitioner, he reached the conclusion that the same belongs to the petitioner although petitioner was not present on the spot and the material available before him only contemplated (pratit hota hai). As such, the detaining authority has not applied it's mind in right earnest and, therefore, the impugned action of detention lacks bonafide. While further elaborating submissions on the concept, meaning, scope and dimensions of the word “consideration” in the context of the Act in hand or similar Acts whereunder a person's personal liberty is curtailed, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Saleena, reported in, (2016) 3 SCC 437, where it has been held as under :

“21. From the aforesaid authority in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B., [(1975) 3 SCC 198], it is clear as day that while rejecting the representation, a speaking order need not be passed and what is nec