1. By way of the present petition, the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 05.06.2012 (Annexure 'A'), passed by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Rajkot, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short, 'the Act') with a view to prevent the petitioner from black marketing essential commodities foodgrains like wheat and acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities essential to the community.
2. It is alleged against the detenu is that the detenu was a driver and owner of Metador (Swaraj Majza) No. GJ-7X-3354 residing at Jatpur Village at Rajkot. It is alleged that on 11.5.2012 the raid was conducted at Jetpur Market Shade No. 2, Shop No. 42 wherein Stock of 7750 Kg. of wheat was found out and it was suspected that such stock of wheat was meant for public distribution system. It was further alleged that the detenu has to deliver the wheat of 155 gunny bags to the fair price shop of Haribhai Chanabhai Parghi at Village Samdhiya, but instead he has taken the wheat of 155 gunny bags in his vehicle and putting the same at Shade No. 2, Shop No. 42 at Jetpur market yard. The detaining authority, therefore, passed the impugned detention order under the Act, to prevent him from acting in any manner which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities.
3. Mr. MR Molavi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that there is delay in deciding the representation by the Central Government and therefore, the continuation of detention becomes illegal and impermissible as per catena of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
He has submitted that though the representation dated 14.06.2012 was sent to the Authorities, the Central Government decided the same on 30th July, 2012 and therefore, the detention order may be quashed.
4. Mr. M. Iqbal A Shaikh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Government has submitted that the Under-Secretary of Department of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi has filed his affidavit dated 28th August, 2012 and has explained the reasons for deciding the representation after about more than one and half months. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the Authority in deciding the representation.
5. I have heard learned advocate appearing for the parties and perused the affidavit of the Central Government and particularly paragraph No. 4, by which the Authority has tried to explain about taking one and half months in deciding the representation. It appears that the representation dated 14.06.2012 was in Gujarati and therefore, the Central Government called for translated version of detention order, grounds of detention etc. from the Government of Gujarat vide letter dated 19th June, 2012 and 21st June, 2012 and reminder was sent on 26th June, 2012. Pursuant to the demand by the Central Government, the State Government furnished the English version of the representation along with the documents on 9th July, 2012. The affidavit is silent about the period taken by the Central Government on deciding the representation from 9th July, 2012 to 30th July, 2012.
6. Recently in case of Ummu Sabina Vs. State of Kerela, 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) P.182, the Apex Court, relying upon several judgments, has held that the representation made by the detenu shall be considered as soon as possible as expressed in sub- clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. It was further held by the Apex Court in case of Ummu Sabina (supra) by considering the case of Km. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khedar Vs. Union of India and others (1991)1 SCC 423 rendered by the Constitutional Bench that “there should not be any supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in disposal of representation would be breach of constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal.” In the present case, the Authority has taken long time in deciding the representation without any explanation. Therefore the continuation of detention has become illegal and impermissible.
7. In the result,this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of detention dated 05.06.2012 passed by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Rajkot is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(A.J. DESAI, J.) Ashish N