RAHIMBHAI ABDULBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
STATE OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
RAVANI, J. -
(1.)The petitioner's nephew, Mohmmed Hanif Bilabhai Memon, has been detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No. 7 of 1980), as per order dt. April 28, 1988. The order was executed on July 6, 1988. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order by filing this petition.
(2.)It is disclosed in the grounds of detention that on Nov. 26, 1987 the police raided the residential premises of the detenu and on search it was found that there was one barrel containing pamolene oil and there were some tins also. There was about 180 kgs. of pamolene oil in the barrel. Two filled tins of pamolene oil were lying near the barrel. On seeing the police the detenu tried to escape, but he was arrested. Before, the staff of the Directorate of Civil Supplies the detenu had given statement. Therein he admitted that he was dealing in pamolene oil for last about one month prior to the date of search that he was not holding any licence or permit to deal in pamolene oil that he was purchasing the pamolene oil at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per barrel and then the same was being filled in tins which were being sold at the rate of Rs. 338 to Rs. 339/- per tin. Thus he was earning Rs. 30/- to Rs. 35 per tin. It is also disclosed that pamolene oil was being obtained with the help of Ramaji Sunaji who in turn used to procure pamolene oil from brokers Galbaji Hemaji and Kapurji Navaji. It was also disclosed that aforesaid Galbaji Hemaji and Kapurji Naveji had received pamolene oil from the dealers of fair price shops. The aforesaid pamoline oil was sold by the detenu. In respect of this sale no bills were issued nor any accounts were maintained. It was therefore alleged that the detenu was guilty of storing pamolene oil in excess of 10 kg. which was the permissible limit up to which one may tore pamolene oil. It was also disclosed that for the pamolene oil sold, no books of accounts ere maintained that while indulging in such activity the detenu had abetted brokers Ramaji Sunaji, Galbaji Hemaji and Kapurji Navaji. It as also alleged that while indulging in such activity statutory provisions of S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were directly or indirectly contravened and offence under the aforesaid Act was committee. The detaining authority came to the conclusion that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity i.e. edible oil (pamolene) essential to the community it was necessary to detain him an hence passed the order dt. April 28, 1988. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.
(3.)It is contended that provisions of Ss.3(4) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 have not been complied with inasmuch as the State Government has failed to report to the Central Govt. within seven days from the date of the order. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Shri. M.D. Makwana, Deputy Secretary to Government of Gujarat, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar it is stated that the fact of detention was reported to the Central Government on April 28, 1988 i.e. the date on which the order was passed. The learned counsel for the Central Government has produced on record a cop of the telex message received by him wherein it is stated that the State Government reported the fact to the Central Government vide letter dt. April 28, 1988 and the same was received on May 4, 1988. Be it noted that in respect of the alleged illegal transactions, certain other, persons have been detained be orders passed on the same date. All these persons have challenged the legality and validity of the detention order. By filing special criminal application No. 489 of 1988 one Kapurji Navaji has challenged the order on his detention. Therein also this contention is taken. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Central Government in that petition, the aforesaid facts have been stated. The telex message as well as a copy of the affidavit-in-reply filed in the aforesaid petition have been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner. We do no see any reason to doubt the telex message, much more so in view of the affidavit-in-reply filed in the above petition. By consent of the parties, the averments made in affidavit-in-reply in the cognate petition have been referred to. Assuming that the same cannot be relied upon, even then in yew of the telex message and the statement made by the counsel for the respondents give hold that the provisions of S.3(4) of the Act have been sufficiently complied with. In above view of the matter there is sufficient compliance with the provisions of S.3(4) of the Act. Similar view is taken in the aforesaid petition also, which has been decided by this Court on September 20, 1988.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.