PURUSOTTAM KHANDAL Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution for an order in the nature of habeas corpus on the ground that the petitioner has been illegally detained. The detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack on 25-5-84 in exercise of the powers conferred on him under S.3 of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act (7 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack shows that he was satisfied that the petitioner who is a Storage Agent of Pattamundai was found acting in a prejudicial manner to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities, essential to the community and was committing an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and that he had acted in a manner for making wrongful gain which had defeated and, would tend to defeat the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The District Magistrate, Cuttack has directed the petitioner to be detained in the Circle Jail at Cuttack until further orders. A copy of the said order has been annexed to the said petition as Annexure-1.

(2.) The petitioner was served with the order of detention dated 25-5-84 (Annexure-1) on 29-5-84 along with the grounds of detention. He was taken into custody on 26-5-84. It is alleged that the State Government approved the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate on 5-6-84 which is beyond the statutory period and, as such, the order of detention is invalid and continuance of further detention of the petitioner is without authority of law. It is also alleged that no report of the fact of detention of the petitioner has been sent to the Central Government together with grounds under which the order has been made along with the other particulars within the statutory period of 7 days from the date of detention as required under S.3(4) of the Act for which the entire action of the Government is vitiated. On 4-7-84 the District Magistrate sent a letter to the petitioner intimating him about the sitting of the Advisory Board on 6-7-84 at 2 P.M. to consider the case of the petitioner. Though the petitioner was asked to inform if he desires to be heard in person by the Advisory Board, the time allowed for the purpose was inadequate. The petitioner requested to defer the sitting of the Advisory Board for some time to enable him to get ready for defending himself. But no order was passed thereon. It is alleged that he was produced before the Advisory Board on 6-7-84 and in the circumstances it should be held that reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to place his case before the Advisory Board. The petitioner makes a grievance that the principle of natural justice has been violated and all the formalities prescribed under the law have not been complied with. It is alleged that the grounds of detention or at least some of them are vague, irrelevant and non-existent. Some of the grounds are said to be too remote and not proximate to the order of detention. The petitioner has also alleged that some of the grounds of detention are based on no evidence and the entire action of the authorities is tainted with mala fides. The order of detention as well as the grounds on which the same is based show that the plea of the petitioner was not at all considered and there was no application of mind by the authorities who exercised the power under S.3 of the Act.

(3.) The District Magistrate, opposite party No.1, in the affidavit in reply has denied the allegations made in the writ petition. It has been stated that the order of detention was passed on the basis of materials which are sufficient to support the order of detention. It is stated that the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner within the stipulated period of 5 days as required under the Act. The petitioner was given due opportunity to represent his case before the Advisory Board and the principles of natural justice have not been violated. All the other formalities were complied with and, therefore, the order of detention is said to be in accordance with law.