K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated April 14, 1988 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in writ. petition No. 4454 of 1988 whereby the order of detention passed against the respondent under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ("The Act" was quashed.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are these:The respondent was said to have smuggled paddy from Andhra Pradesh to Tamil Nadu. During the watch kept by the Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Nellore on the night of November 4, 1987 a lorry bearing No. MDN-8505 carrying 125 bags of paddy was spotted when it was trying to go to Tamil Nadu avoiding check post. The lorry was chased by the Inspector of Police and his staff. The driver suddenly stopped the lorry, but the persons in the vehicle took to heals jumping out therefrom and disappeared in the bushes. The respondent was identified by the Inspector of Police and his staff in the head lights of the jeep in which they were chasing. The driver of the vehicle was apprehended after a hot chase, but not the respondent. From the interrogation of the driver, it was established that on November 4,1987, the respondent. along with two others were in the cabin of the lorry and they were responsible for transporting paddy to Tamil Nadu. The paddy and the lorry were seized by the Inspector. A criminal case was registered against the driver under the Essential Commodities Act and the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. When the investigation of that case was proceeding, Additional Superintendent of Police, Nellore sent proposals to the District Magistrate for detaining the respondent under the Act. The District Magistrate passed an order dated December 24, 1987 directing the detention of the respondent. On January 4, 1988, the State Government approved the detention. On January 11, 1988 the State Government acting under Sec. 10 of the Act referred the matter to the Advisory Board.
(3.) On January 27, 1988, the detenu submitted a representation through the Superintendent, Central Prison where he was detained to the Chairman of the Advisory Board and to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and also to the detaining authority. The Government forwarded the representation to the Advisory Board. On January 29, 1988, the Advisory Board met and heard the detenu and the officers on behalf of the Government. There were high ranking police officials representing the Government. The Advisory Board after hearing those officers and the detenu made an order: "We have heard the detenu, who has been produced before us and considered his written representation. We have also heard Sri V. Appa Rao, I.G.P. (Spl), Vigilance, Sri C. R. Naidu, Addl. S. P. (Vigilance), Hyderabad, Sri N. Chandramouli, D. S. P. (Vigilance), Nellore and Sri Nageswara Rao, in charge Joint Collector, Nellore District. We have perused the grounds of detention and other connected papers. Opinion We are of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for the detention of Balajangam Subbaramaiah @ Bommu Subbaramaiah @ Subbarami Reddy, S/0 Changaiah. Chairman Member Member" The Government agreed with the opinion and confirmed the detention for a period of six months. The detenu challenged the validity of the order of detention before the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of detention. The High Court found that there was unequal treatment by the Advisory Board in considering the representation of the detenu. The Advisory Board having decided to hear the top ranking police officers like the Inspector General of Police, Vigilance, Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Joint Collector of Nellore District ought to have given an equal chance of representation to the detenu by permitting him to be represented by a lawyer or at least by an official (friend) of an equal rank. The High Court tersely observed: "In such circumstances, the Advisory Board ought to have provided the prisoner an opportunity for representation though not by a lawyer at least by some one equally competent like those who appeared for the State. The Government cannot deny the fact that the might of the official representation before the Advisory Board outweighed by several times the value of the detenu's representation." The High Court also found that the detenu did write to the Government on January 27, 1988 asking for representation by a lawyer and that request ought to have been acceded to by the Advisory Board when the matter came up before it. The High Court then said: "We are of the opinion that the dormant right of the detenu for equal representation had become active upon the mode of conducting the proceedings by the Advisory Board. The prisoner in this case could not have envisaged that the high State officials would appear against his case and for the detaining authority. For these reasons, we cannot agree with the contention that the prisoner himself was to blame for not asking the Advisory Board for a lawyer's representation or for equal level of representation before the Advisory Board. As we are of the opinion that Article 22(5) requires the Advisory Board to afford the prisoner an equal opportunity for representing his case compared with the quality and quantity of official representation allowed for the detaining authority and as we are also of the opinion that the official representation in this case far outweighed in importance the detenu's representation we hold that Art. 22(5) is violated in this case.";