D.G.KARIA,J. - (1.) By both the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have questioned the legality and vapidity of their detention orders dated 7.7.1997, passed by the second respondent in exercise of his powers under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short 'the said Act') with a view to preventing the detenus from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodities essential to the community.
(2.) The petitions being similar and raising the same or identical points are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel, Mr. H.R. Prajapati, for the petitioners, and-Mr. A.J. Desai, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Sunil C. Patel, for respondent No. 4-the Union of India.;