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 that he is a licence holder from the Government to run a fair price shop and is running the shop at Village Bordisamdhiyala in the name of Bordisamdhiyala Sewa Sahkari Mandali. As per the information received by the Deputy Mamlatdar of Jetpur, he visited the shop and found that he was indulging in activities contrary to the conditions than provided in the licence itself. Several irregularities were found and ultimately the Authority, who found that to restrain the detenu is under the Provision of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act was necessary and accordingly the order under Section 3 of the said Act came to be passed by the District Magistrate on 5.6.2012.
3. Mr. MR Molavi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that though the representation addressed to the State Government as well as Central Government was sent on 14.06.2012, till date the Central Government has not decided this representation and therefore, the detention order may be quashed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. M. Iqbal A Shaikh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Government has submitted that the Central Government has not received any representation made by the detenu though the Authority had requested time and again to the State Government to send translated version of detention order by filing affidavit of Deputy Secretary of the Department of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi. It has been categorically stated that though the Central Government had written letter on 21st June, 2012, 3rd July, 2012 and 17th July, 2012 and a reminder dated 25th July, 2012 requesting the State Government to supply the translated version, the same has not been supplied and in view of the above facts, the representation could not be decided.
5. On behalf of State of Gujarat an affidavit is filed by Under Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Gandhinagar but the affidavit is silent about forwarding the translated version of the representation along with the documents. It has been accepted that the reminder was received by the Central Government but has not clarified about the action taken by the State Government. It is a case, where the State Government is at fault in not forwarding translated version detention order, representation and necessary documents to the Central Government.
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