Z.K.SAIYED - (1.)The petitioner came to be dtained under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short "PBM Act"), by virtue of order passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, on March 31, 2010, in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the said Act. The detaining authority found that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and may result in black marketing of such commodities and, therefore, he is required to be immediately prevented from pursuing his activities by starting business in the name of his relative or associates. The detaining authority has further observed that if a complaint is lodged under Section 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, he may get himself released on bail or may obtain an injunction order and may continue his activities and, therefore, detention is the only effective remedy that can be resorted to. Ultimately, the order of detention was passed.
(2.)The said order is sought to be challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on various grounds. However, learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati, appearing for the petitioner, has restricted his arguments to the ground that the detaining authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction on extraneous material in absence of any cogent or concrete material to support such a conclusion. The order is, therefore, without application of mind and would be vitiated. Learned Advocate has drawn the attention of this Court that in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that for the alleged irregularities, F.I.R. being CR No. II 58/2010 has been registered on 20.3.2010 with Kamrej Police Station and there is apprehension that the petitioner is likely to continue alleged unauthorized activities and, therefore, preventive detention is the only remedy to prevent the same. Learned Advocate has contended that it is not the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority as to how the petitioner is likely to continue his alleged activities if he is arrested by the Police. He has contended that mere apprehension without there being any material in support of the same would show a total non-application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority. He also contended that the petitioner has not been supplied with the statements of material witnesses and non supply of those documents along with the grounds of detention would amount to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Prajapati has also contended that the petitioner does not know English, he cannot read, write and understand English. However, the document at Page No.81 F.S.L. Report, which has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority is in English and the petitioner has not been given translation of the said document in the language known to the petitioner and supply of a material document in the language unknown to the petitioner would amount to breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. This has infringed the rights of the detenu envisaged under Section Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The continued detention of detenu is therefore, vitiated. He may, therefore, be ordered to enlarged from the detention.
(3.)Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 are represented by learned A.G.P. Mr. Janak Raval. He has filed affidavits of Detaining Authority as well as of Joint Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Food, Civil supplies and Consumer Affairs Department. Respondent No.4-Union of India is represented by Mr. Shaikh, learned Standing Counsel.