Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Vivek Rusia, Amar Nath (Kesharwani), JJ.
Jagdish Salvi – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4053 of 2022
Decided On : 22-04-2022
Black Marketing - Detention Order - Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 2000 - Section 3, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13 - The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 2000, particularly focusing on the requirements for detention orders, constitution of Advisory Boards, and the procedure for confirmation of detention orders. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of obtaining confirmation from the appropriate Government under Section 12(1) and the maximum period of detention allowed under Section 13.
Fact of the Case:
The detenue was detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 2000 for his involvement in the transportation of rice from a Government Fair Price Shop. The petitioner challenged the detention order, citing non-confirmation by the State Government as required under Section 12(1) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was not confirmed by the State Government as required under Section 12(1) of the Act, leading to the detenue's liability to be released. The court also directed the constitution of a Larger Bench to consider substantial questions of law related to detention orders under the Act.
Issues: The issues included the non-confirmation of the detention order by the State Government, the legality of detention beyond three months, and the prescription of the period of detention by the District Magistrate or competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the mandatory requirement of confirmation by the appropriate Government under Section 12(1) of the Act and the illegality of detention beyond the prescribed period. The court also emphasized the need for a Larger Bench to address substantial questions of law related to detention orders under the Act.
Final Decision: The detenue was directed to be released from detention due to the non-confirmation of the detention order by the State Government. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench for consideration of substantial legal issues.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Rusia, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 by which his son Vijay Salvi S/o Jagdish Salvi has been detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as '' Black Marketing Act, 1980'').
1. In the present petition, the detenue Vijay Salvi S/o Jagdish Salvi at the relevant point of time, was working in Fair Price Shop, Amla. The present petition is filed through his father Jagdish Salvi.
2. On 30.12.2021, police searched a loading vehicle bearing registration No.MP-13-GB-0179 and found bags of rice loaded in it. The driver was apprehended and interrogated. He disclosed that he was transporting rice bags from Government Fair Price Shop, Amla to Government Fair Price Shop, Arjunkhedi, Tehsil Badnagar, District Ujjain, on instructions of the Vijay Salvi (hereinafter referred to as '' Detenu''). Junior Supply Officer has conducted an enquiry of Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society, Amla, an allottee society under Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as '' Distribution Order, 2015'') and submitted a report dated 06.01.2022. On the basis of said report, the Collector (Food), directed for registration of FIR against the detenue and driver Gokul S/o Shri Kailash Rathore. The FIR was registered at crime No.12 of 2022 on 07.01.2022.
3. A show-cause notice dated 13.01.2022 was also issued to the detenue under Clause 16 of the Distribution Order, 2015 because of the recovery of 66 bags of rice in vehicle No.MP-13-GB-0179. The detenue submitted a detailed reply to Sub Divisional Officer, Badnagar. Before the final order could be passed on show-cause notice, on the reply submitted by the detenue, he was served a detention order dated 18.01.2022 ordering him to be detained and kept in Central Jai, Ujjain for a period of six months from the date of actual detention. Along with the copy of the order dated 18.01.2022, the grounds for detention were also supplied to the petitioner. The detenue was detained on 19.01.2022 and a detention order and grounds were served upon his father on 20.01.2022. The detenue submitted a detailed representation to (i) District Magistrate, Ujjain, (ii) Principal Secretary, Department of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Vallbh Bhawan,Bhopal (iii) Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & (iv) The Advisory Board on 27.01.2022. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
4. After filing this petition, the State Government has approved the detention order by passing an order dated 28.01.2022, which the petitioner has challenged by way of amendment. During the pendency of this petition, the Advisory Board, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) has given an opinion that there exists sufficient cause for the detention of detenue under the Black Marketing Act, 1980.
5. Inter alia, the petitioner has assailed the impugned action on various grounds and placed reliance on various judgments passed by this Court as well as Apex Court.
6. The respondents have filed the return justifying its action by submitting that the complete procedure has been followed while passing the detention order and no interference is called for.
7. After the final argument, in this case, this Court has found that no order of confirmation has been issued by the State Government as required under Section 12(1) of Black Marketing Act, 1980, hence, vide order dated 06.04.2022, Additional Advocate General was directed to address on this issue.
8. Under Section 3(1) of the Black Marketing Act, 1980, the Central Government or a State Government or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary empowered for the purpose of this section and any officer not below the rank of Secretary of State Government, if satisfied, with respect to
The mandatory requirement of confirmation by the appropriate Government under Section 12(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 2000, and th....
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 representation consideration must be justified; otherwise, they violate constitutional rights and render the detention illegal.
Delays in preventive detention orders and in considering representations violate constitutional rights, rendering such orders illegal.
Delays in preventive detention orders and in considering representations must be justified; otherwise, they violate constitutional rights and render the detention illegal.
The court emphasized the need for swift action and due process under the Essential Commodities Act, highlighting that preventive detention should not substitute the punishment required under the law.
The necessity for swift action and sufficient evidence in cases of preventive detention under the Essential Commodities Act.
Undue delay in passing a detention order under the PBM Act can render the order illegal, violating constitutional rights.
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
