RAMESHCHANDRA GORDHANDAS RAMCHANDANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.K.TRIVEDI Date of decision: 04/02/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)Heard learned Advocate Mr. H. R. Prajapati for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. A. J. Desai for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Davawala, learned Advocate for the respondent No.4.

1.(cid:9)The detention order dated 28.9.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 - District Magistrate, Dahod, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ("PBM ACT" for short) is challenged in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2.(cid:9)The grounds of detention served to the detenu, copy of which is produced at Annexure - "B", interalia, indicate that the petitioner Rameshchandra Gordhandas Ramchandani has been dealing in a business by running a fair price shop at village Padav. That he is holding a valid licence to hold a godown No. 15 at Dahod Market Yard. The ground further contended that on receipt of information, inquiry was carried out at godown No. 15, at Dahod Market Yard by the officers of Civil Supplies Department, State of Gujarat, and 27 bags of wheat were found, out of which, 12 bags which were separately stored were found to be containing wheat supplied by the State Government to the fair price shop owner for distribution to the card holders of persons living below poverty line. Apart from that, several other irregularities in the record maintained by the petitioner were found and the further inquiry revealed that the petitioner, on the basis of forged documents, has acquired the quantity of wheat, which was meant for distribution to the persons living below poverty line and was dealing in the open market. Thus, the petitioner having committed breach of clauses 18, 22 and 23 of Essential Supplies ( Licencing, Control & Stock Declaration) Order 1981, and conditions nos. 5,6 and 9 of the licence issued to him, was liable to be prosecuted under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. That the respondent No. 2 on consideration of material place before him, has come to the conclusion that prosecution of the petitioner for the said offences as well as less drastic remedy like cancellation of licence etc. being time consuming process, were not sufficient to prevent the detenu from continuing his anti-social activities and thereby, in order to prevent the petitioner forthwith, detention order under PBM Act was necessary and hence, impugned order is passed. (cid:9)The order is served and the petitioner is committed to district jail, Bhuj as Class-II prisoner.

3.(cid:9)The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on numerous grounds. However, during the hearing, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati for the petitioner has urged a contention on which, the petition could be disposed of. Relying on the contention averred in the ground (r) of the petition, it is contended that while serving and supplying the grounds of detention, the documents accompanied, and particularly license bearing No. 103/94 as well as No. 88/94 were incomplete documents and particularly, internal pages Nos. 5 to 9 containing the vital informations were missing. That petitioner demanded said documents vide representation dated 1.10.1999. That though the representation has been rejected, the respondents have failed to supply the same and on the said fact, it is urged that the respondents having supplied the incomplete set of documents, have deprived the petitioner from making effective representation against his detention, thereby, constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) having been violated the continued detention of the petitioner is bad in law.

4.(cid:9)The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have filed an affidavits of one Mr. P. R. Shukla dated 3rd November, 1999 and one Mr. E. I. Kalas dated 8th December, 1999. In the first part of the affidavit of P. R. Shukla, the allegation made in ground (r) has been denied and it has been stated that all documents were supplied to the petitioner.

5.(cid:9)That on scrutiny of original papers, it was pointed out to learned AGP Mr. Desai that documents produced at running page No. 39 to 43 disclose the fact that material at pages Nos. 5,6,7 , 8 and 9 as per the allegations made in ground (r) are missing. That the material directions alleged to have been breached by the petitioner, are contained on said pages. Learned AGP Mr. Desai has fairly stated that the original file supplied to him for instructions, contain no explanation as to why such affidavits have been filed and the documents have not been supplied.

6.(cid:9)As stated hereinabove, on facts, I am constrained to hold that the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to supply the requisite documents as prescribed under law alongwith the grounds of detention. They have also failed to supply the essential pages of the license as alleged in ground (r) whereby, constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) has been violated and the continued detention of the petitioner is illegal.

7.(cid:9)On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 28-9-1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner Rameshchandra Gordhandas Ramchandani is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute to that extent. Date : 04.02.2000.(cid:9) (cid:9)( A.K. Trivedi, J. ) PALLAV.