Preventive detention must be supported by clear, relevant grounds, and judicial review is limited to evaluating the sufficiency of said grounds.

1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner who has been detained by an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Indore, under S.3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on being satisfied that the detention of the petitioner is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.

2. The facts giving rise to petition briefly are as follows:
The petitioner carries on business under the name and style of Kukreja Oil Industries' at village Pigdambar, Tehsil Mhow, District Indore. On 17-8-1981, respondent No. 3, the Food Controller, inspected the premises of the aforesaid concern of the petitioner. According to respondent No. 3, the petitioner was not present at the premises of his concern at that time and hence he was contacted by respondent No. 3 on telephone and asked to remain present at the time of enquiry but the petitioner informed respondent No. 3 that he was unwell and that he was sending his son Gopaldas to remain present at the time of inspection. Thereafter Gopaldas, the son of the petitioner, reached the premises of the concern. Ratanchand, Munim of the petitioner was also present at the time of inspection. The statements of Gopaldas and Ratanchand were recorded. Ratanchand deposed that the stock consisted of 66 drums of linseed oil, each drum weighing 185 kgs.
Gopaldas deposed that he was owner of the concern known as 'Jayashree Oil Mills' that the premises of the concern "Kukreja Oil Industries" owned by his father - the petitioner - were inspected in his presence, that no stock register was maintained and that no fortnightly return was sent by that concern, that only linseed oil was extracted by the concern and that there was no stock of linseed but there was ready stock of 66 drums of linseed oil. Respondent No. 3 found that no plant for refining oil was installed at the premises and that 10 out of the aforesaid 66 drums appeared to contain soyabean oil. The drums were seized and sample was taken in the presence of the petitioner's son and one bottle of the sample was given to him. The sample in a sealed bottle was then sent to the public analyst, Municipal Corporation Indore, who, after analysis, sent his report on 19-8-1981 that the sample was not of linseed oil but of refined Soyabeen oil. Thereafter, on 20th August, 1981, respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Indore, passed an order under S.3(2) of the Act directing that the petitioner be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.
The order could not, however, be served upon the petitioner as the petitioner was found absconding. Therefore, on 4th September, 1981, respondent No. 2 passed an order under S.7(1)(b) of the Act, which was published in the Government Gazette dated 11th Sept. 1981, notifying the petitioner to surrender within 7 days. Respondent No. 2 also reported abscondance of the petitioner to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, as required by S.7(1) of the Act, for taking action against the petitioner under the provisions of S.82, S.83, S.84 and S.85 of the Criminal P.C. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Indore, had sent the order of detention to the State Government for app