MAVJIBHAI KARSANBHAI RAMANI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu who has been detained under the provisions of sub section (2) of section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing Act, has challenged, the said detention. The said order of detention Annexure A was passed on 29-8-1986. The grounds are at Annexure B. The detenu made a representation on 8-9-1986 and it was rejected on 6-10-1986. The Civil Supplies Department got information that in one residential bunglow at Surat a huge stock of edible oil, namely, groundnut oil and pamonil oil was being un-authorisedly stored and was also traded in. The premises were raided, panchnama was made, goods were freezed and one Chhaganbhai Pate was found to have hired the said premises from one Mlnad. However, on further recording of statement and investigation it was found that the premises were kept on hire by the present detenu and despite the fact that the goods were freezed they were taken away and when the present detenu was apprehended he was absconding and he was at Amreli. Subsequently he came and presented himself. He was taken in detention and the said order is being challenged on numerous grounds.

(2.) Mr. H.L. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the detenu could only urge that it was not the present detenu who was the tenant of the said premises, but it was one Chhaganbhai Patel and Chhaganbhai Patel had hired the said premises and he was the owner of the said business. However, from the statements, the copies whereof were supplied to the detenu, it becomes crystal clear that Chhganbhai was only a front for the illegal activities of the present detenu. Statement of Driver and the statements of other witnesses indicate that it was the present detenu who was dealing with the same and he had audacity to take away the goods, which were freezed. The detenu has admitted that the premises were rented by him and the business was of his. The first ground of Mr. Patel namely, that though Chhaganbhai who was owner of the business has been released by the Advisory Board, and this detenu being only the servant of Chhaganbhai could not have been detained falls to the ground inasmuch as the business has been very correctly found to be of the present detenu.

(3.) The next ground, which Mr. Patel urged was that the representation was not duly considered. It was made on 6-9-1986 and the affidavit of Mr. Rao very clearly indicates that it was received on 12-9-1986. Thereafter making allowance for certain holidays it was considered as expeditiously as it was possible, and it was rejected on 6-10-1986. Mr. Patel, argued that the delay of each particular day is to be explained and there is no explanation as to why the file remained with the law Ministry for a period of four days. The delay in each particular case is to be considered with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. As there were intervening holidays and as the files were expeditiously proceeded and the rejection order was passed after considering the material we do not feel that there was any unreasonable delay, which remains unexplained. There was practically no delay and broadly speaking the affidavit of Mr. Rao explains the stages through which the file passed. Under the circumstances, the second contention raised by Mr. Patel falls through.