RAMJI SUNAJI MARWARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Ramji Sunaji Marwari
STATE OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
PER KAPADIA, J. -
(1.)THE present petition is filed by the detenu against the order of detention dated 28 -4 -1988 passed by the Government of Gujarat under sub -sec. (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, on it being satisfied with respect to the present petitioner -detenu that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Maintenance of Public Supplies of Commodities, i.e. edible oil and palmolein essential to the community, it was necessary to pass the order of detention against the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner was detained on 13 -3 -1988. He was also served with the grounds of detention in Jail.
(2.)ON perusal of the grounds it appears that he was working as a broker for delivering essential commodities like palmolein, foodgrains like wheat, etc. to the licence -holders from the Government godowns. It was so admitted by the petitioner in his statement dated 27 -11 -1987. From the statement of Mohmad Hanif dated 27 -11 -1987, it was found that whatever quantity of pamolein was seized from him was purchased by him from the present petitioner. Said Mohmad Hanif had also stated that other six barrels of of palmolein were purchased by him from the petitioner arid he had paid the price at the rate of Rs. 3600/per barrel and that said Mohmad Hanif had sold the same to the customers charging Rs. 330/to Rs. 350/per tin and thereby he had made profit of Rs. 30/to Rs. 33/per tin. In the statement of the petitioner he had stated that he knew said Mohmad Hanif since last one month and that he had supplied pamolein oil to him. The petitioner had further stated in his statement that the brokers at Camp godown are disposing of the quantity of pamolein oil and the above referred quantity of pamolein oil are part of it and that till recording of the statement he had unauthorisedly given seven barrels of pamolein oil (1330 Kgs.) to said Shri Mohmad Hanif Memon. He had further referred to the names of other brokers namely Kapurji Navaji and Garbaji Hemaji from whom he had purchased pamolein oil. One barrel he had purchased from Kapurji and six barrels he had purchased from Garbaji and he had sold all the seven barrels to said Memon at the price of Rs. 3600/ -per barrel. He had also admitted in statement that unauthorisedly he had received the profit and/or gain of Rs. 100/or Rs. 50/per barrel. Reference was also made to the statement made by Kapurji Navaji as well as Garbaji Hemaji wherein they had also admitted to have sold unauthorisedly palmolein oil to the present petitioner. From the above material it was concluded that the petitioner was aiding and abetting said Mohmad Hanif in his activity of illegally disposing of the quantity of pamolein oil. In the grounds of detention it was also pointed out that pamolein oil is essential commodity and it is being distributed to the cardholders through fair price shops. The said quantity of palmolein oil was obtained illegally by the -present petitioner and he had aided and abetted said Mohmad Hanif in his aforesaid illegal activities. It is also mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner had abetted said Shri Memon in committing breach of the Central Orders and the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and therefore, the activities of the the petitioner was punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').
(3.)THE detaining authority had also considered various alternative less drastic remedies before being satisfied on the point of necessity of passing the order of detention and accordingly he passed the said order.
In this petition various grounds have been raised by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order. However, at the time of hearing Mr. M. L. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner has proceed before us the following points only :
(1) That the petitioner does not know how to read and write Gujarati language and he knows only Hindi and he demanded the grounds of detention in Hindi in his representation dated 21 -5 -88 and as he has not been served with the grounds of detention in Hindi which he knows, no adequate opportunity to make representation was given to him. Therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner is bad and illegal. (2) That the State Government has failed to report the fact of detention of the petitioner to the Central Govt. within seven days as required under Section 3 (4) of the act and therefore, ths continued detention of the petitioner is bad and illegal. (3) That the detaining authority has not considered the less drastic remedies before arriving at the subjective satisfaction on the point of necessity of passing the detention order. (4) That there is delay in passing the order of detention as the incident has taken place on 24 -11 -1987 while the order was passed on 28 -4 -88.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.