IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu, Dwarka Dhish Bansal, JJ.
Suresh Upadhyay – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 28071 of 2021
Decided On : 16-02-2022
Preventive Detention - Challenge to Order under Article 226 - Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, Section 3(1) - Summary: The court discussed the legality of the order of preventive detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1980. It highlighted the obligation of the District Magistrate to report the order to the State Government 'forthwith' and referred to a similar interpretation in a previous case. The court found that the delayed communication by the District Magistrate to the State Government vitiated the impugned order of preventive detention, leading to the quashing of the order and consequential orders of affirmation and extension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, citing irregularities in procedure and distribution of essential commodities. The petitioner was arrested and sent to jail after filing for anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delayed communication by the District Magistrate to the State Government vitiated the impugned order of preventive detention, leading to the quashing of the order and consequential orders of affirmation and extension.
Issues: Challenge to the legality, validity, and propriety of the order of preventive detention, delayed communication of the order to the State Government, and arrest of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The delayed communication by the District Magistrate to the State Government vitiated the impugned order of preventive detention.
Final Decision: The impugned order of preventive detention and all consequential orders were quashed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released from custody.
ORDER
Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J. - In the present petition, powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked to assail the legality, validity and proprietary of order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, Bhopal on 25.06.2021 by invoking Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for brevity "Act of 1980").
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.6.2021 (Ann.P.1) with the contention that he was served with the show cause notice dated 18.6.2021regarding certain irregularities in procedure and distribution of the essential commodities, in pursuance of which he submitted the reply on 1.7.2021, and even prior to the cut off date the order was passed. It is also contented that FIR was also registered against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act at Crime No.225/2021. Upon filing an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.48806/2021. It is further contended that upon appearing before the concerning police station on 7.12.2021 for furnishing the bail the police arrested the petitioner on the same day i.e. on 7.12.2021 and sent him to jail.
3. After filing of the return by the State government the petitioner prayed for and was permitted to amend the writ petition vide order dated 2.2.2022 whereby the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 6.7.2021 (Ann.P.3) and order dated 12.7.2021 (Ann.P.4) with the contention that the petitioner came to know about the said orders for the first time after filing of this petition.
4. Placing reliance on the orders passed by this Court on 14.12.2021, 22.12.2021 and 21.1.2022 in W.P.No.16947/2021, W.P.No.27038/2021 and W.P.No.305/2022 respectively, lot many grounds have been raised by learned counsel for petitioner in support of challenge to the aforesaid orders but the ground which appeals to this Court is that the order of preventive detention was passed by the District Magistrate on 25.6.2021 but the matter was sent to the State Government on 5.7.2021 for approval.
5. Learned counsel for State submits that communication of the aforesaid order could not be made to the petitioner and since the petitioner was absconding and could only be physically detained/arrested on 7.12.2021, the District Magistrate could only thereafter forward the case along with grounds of detention to the State Government for approval under Section 3(3) of the Act of 1980.
6. For ready reference and convenience, Section 3 of the Act of 1980 is reproduced below:-
"3. Power to make orders detaining certain per sons.-
(1) The Central Government or a State Government or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community " means-
(a) committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955) or under any other law for the time being in force relating to the control of the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community; or
(b) dealing in any commodity-
(i) which is an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), or
The obligation of the District Magistrate to report the order of preventive detention to the State Government 'forthwith' and the impact of delayed communication on the validity of the order.
The power of preventive detention is exercised to prevent and not to punish, and strict compliance with the statutory procedure under NSA is essential.
Preventive detention requires timely action and sufficient grounds; delays and lack of evidence can render such orders illegal.
Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the National Security Act is essential in cases of preventive detention.
Delay in passing a detention order under preventive laws renders it illegal if not justified, violating the constitutional right to timely review.
Delays in preventive detention orders and in considering representations violate constitutional rights, rendering such orders illegal.
Undue delay in passing a detention order under the PBM Act can render the order illegal, violating constitutional rights.
Delays in preventive detention orders and representation consideration must be justified; otherwise, they violate constitutional rights and render the detention illegal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.