H. N. Seth, J. - (1.) THESE three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for writ of habeas corpus can be disposed of by a common judgment. Whereas H. C. Writ Petition No. 23 of 1984 is by Subhash Chandra Goel, H. C. Writ Petition No. 37 of 1984 is by Suresh Chandra Goel. Petitioner in H. C. Writ Petition No. 38 of 1.984 is Bhagwan Das Goel.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to these petitions are that there is a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Goel Gas Service which carries on the business of purchasing and selling gas cylinders filled with liquid petroleum gas (LPG) at 6/1 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Agra. Suresh Chadra Goel (petitioner in writ petition no. 37 of 1984), Bhagwan Das Goel (petitioner in writ petition no. 38 of 1984) along with Gulab Chandra Agarwal and Smt. Mamta Rani Goel are the partners of firm M/s. Goel Gas Service. Subhash Chandra Goel (petitioner in writ petition no. 23 of 1984) is the son of Bhagwan Das Goel (petitioner in writ petition no. 38 of 1984). It is said that on 29th of October., 1983 the business permises of the said firm were raided by Sri Chakrapani, Addl. City Magistrate, Agra. At that time petitioner Subhash Chandra Goel was present at the business premises. Search of the show room, godown etc. in premises no. 6/1, Mahatma Gandhi Rood, Agra revealed that no stock or weight board had been displayed. The stock and oil registers were not produced even though sufficient time for the purpose was allowed. Permission from the Explosives Department to stock LPG and to sell the same was not produced. 25 Jai Jyoti LPG cylinders (16 full and 9 empty) were also found in the shop but the proprietors did not produce any evidence to show that they had been appointed as dealer by Jai Jyoti company. The cylinders found were not marked with 'ISI' marking. 99 full and 58 empty cylinders were recovered from the spot. The show room and stare were located inside the premises but no licence in that regard from the Explosives Department was produced. Sri Chakrapani, Additional City Magistrate felt that as the show room and godown were located within the residential building area, there was a possibility of an accident and injury being caused to various persons. The firm as well as its associates had accordingly committed offences punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and section 4/5 of the Indian Explosives Act. He accordingly lodged an FIR. at the police station, Line Mandi, Agra on 29th of October, 1983. Petitioner Subhash Chandra Goel, was arrested and taken to the police station. He moved an application for being released on bail and was by order dated 31st of October, 1983 passed by the Special Judge, released on bail. Subsequently on 7th of December, 1983, District Magistrate, Agra, in exercise of his powers under section 3 (2) (a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made an order under section 3 (1) of the Act authorising petitioners' detention in the District Jail, Agra. The petitioners were accordingly arrested on the night between 7th and 8th of December, 1983 and were lodged in the District Jail, Agra on 8th of December 1983. A perusal of grounds for their detention served upon the petitioners reveals that after referring to the facts which are said to have been discovered and the irregularities noticed by the Addl. City Magistrate when he raided premises no. 6/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Agra on 29th of October, 1983, the District Magistrate concluded that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Gas Cylinders Rules 1981 which contravention was punishable under section 5/9 of the Indian Explosives Act. He also was of opinion that as LPG fell within the definition of petroleum products as defined in Petroleum Products (Supply and Distribution) Order 1972 and petroleum products is included in the schedule attached to Essential Commodities Act, the LPG was ah essential commodity, and as the three petitioners were responsible for serious irregularities in connection with the distribution of LPG, they were guilty of offences punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the case of Subhash Chandra Goel it was also mentioned that he was a person who was looking after the business of the firm and that he was present at the time of inspection.
(3.) IT is thus evident that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that it was necessary to detain the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community was based on the grounds that the petitioners had committed offences that were punishable under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and 5/9 of the Indian Explosives Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners, impugned the validity of the order for their detention passed by the District Magistrate on 7th of October 1983 on a number of grounds and we will now proceed to consider them one after the other.;