Bhagwati,J. - (1.) It is with reluctance, we might almost say regretfully, that we allow this petition directed against the validity of an order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Ranchi under Section 3 (2) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 1971. If only the District Magistrate had applied his mind properly and carefully and acted with a greater sense of responsibility, the infirmity vitiating the order of detention could have been easily avoided. We are painfully conscious of the fact that economic offenders are a menace to the community , and it is necessary in the interest of the economic well-being of the society to mercilessly stamp out such pernicious, anti-social and highly reprehensible activities as hoarding black-marketing and profiteering which are causing havoc to the economy of the country and inflicting untold hardships on the common man and to carry on a relentless war against such economic offenders with a view to putting them out of action. But in the present case, the attempt to curb this social menace has been frustrated and set at naught by want of due care and application on the part of the District Magistrate. We hope and trust that, in future, in view of the social objectives intended to be achieved by the use of the Act against economic offenders. the District Magistrates will show greater care and attention in exercising the vast powers conferred upon them under the Act, both in the interest of personal liberty which is one of our cherished freedoms as also in the interest of firm and effective action against those who are undermining the foundations of our social and economic structure.
(2.) The petitioner is a dealer in high speed diesel oil holding a licence under the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966. It appears that certain complaints were received against the petitioner from local truck owners that he was not supplying high speed diesel oil to them according to their requirements and even when he supplied a little, he made it a condition that they should also buy from him other commodities, such as grease, brake oil, filter oil etc.. but so far as outside truck owners are concerned, he supplied them as much quantity of high speed diesel oil as they liked at prices higher than the controlled. price. The third respondent. who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, thereupon sent respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to the petrol pump of the petitioner with a view to checking the accounts and verifying the stock of high speed diesel oil with the petitioner. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 found on physical verification that there was a total stock of 1957 (sic) litres in the two tanks of the petitioner as against a balance of 1597 (sic) litres appearing in the books of account, with the result that there was an excess stock of 350 {sic) litres. The District Magistrate thereafter, on the materials placed before him, made the order of detention impugned in the present petition.
(3.) The order of detention was based on the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it was necessary to detain the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested and at the time of his arrest he was served with the grounds on which the order of detention was made. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner set out six grounds which were in the following terms: " 1. That he being the proprietor of M/s. Sahu Brothers Caltex petrol dealers at Gumla, his cash Memo No. 70996 dated 14-2-74 shows a sale of 1200 litres of High Speed Diesel oil to one Mr. Griffiths of Tung Tola P. S. Raidih. The said quantity is much beyond the capacity of any transport vehicle and thereby by the said alleged sale he not only aggravated the scarcity of an essential commodity i.e. high speed diesel oil but he also supplied the said Mr. Griffith the said oil in tins or barrels exceeding 37 litres (8 imperial gallons) otherwise than in the tank of a Motor vehicle, without obtaining a written permission from the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, authorizing the said Mr. Griffiths to do so in contravention of Section 7 of Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Licensing Order 1966. 2. That the said Mr. Griffith in his show cause submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Gumla and in his statement recorded by Executive Magistrate, has denied to have purchased 1200 litres of high speed diesel oil at a time at any time. 3. That thus it is quite apparent that by the said cash Memo No. 70996 no sale of the said oil was made and the' said cash Memo was fabricated entirely with the object of disposing of 1200 1itres of the said oil in a clandestine way in black market. 4. That he being the proprietor of M/s. Sahu Brothers Gumla supplied 300 litres of said oil in Truck No. BR 662 on 26-2-74 and 300 litres to Truck No. MPL 5521 on 1-3-1974 and 400 litres in truck No. MPL 1008 on 1-3-1974, 350 litres to truck No. MPL 2135 on 1-3-74 and thereby he was not only aggravating the scarcity of essential commodity, i.e. the High Speed Diesel oil but also supplied more than 37 litres (eight Imperial gallons) of the said oil in tin or barrel to 'be kept or stored otherwise than in the tank of a motor vehicle without obtaining a written permission of the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate authorising storage in contravention of Section 7 of the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1966. 5. That he supplied 762 litres of the said oil as per Cash Memos fully described in Schedule I annexed hereto without giving the name and addresses of the purchasers not only in contravention of clause 7 of the license but the supply by the said cash memos, were shown to fictitious persons. 6. That on physical verification of his stock by Shri R. D. Singh A.D.S.O. and L. Sawaya, Sub-Deputy Collector on 7-3-74 his stock of the said oil was found to be in excess by 357 (sic) litres from the book balance which is undisputedly indicative of the fact that he has been showing fictitious sales." The usual procedure prescribed by the provisions of the Act was thereafter followed and the order of detention was approved by the State Government, the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board and ultimately on receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government.;