1. By way of the present petition, the detenue has challenged the order of detention dated 23.7.2012 passed by respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, 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 food grains like wheat, rice, sugar etc and acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities essential to the community.
2. It is alleged against the detenue that the detenue is running a fair price shop at Sayra, Taluka – Modasa, District Sabarkantha wherein Stock of 2000 Kgs. of wheat; 900 kgs of rice and 150 kgs of sugar were found out and it was suspected that such stock of food grains which are required to be supplied at the concessional rate to the BPL card holders and thereby misappropriated the stock of grains and therefore whole stock of grains wroth Rs. 46,300/- was seized by the Department in the presence of witnesses. It is also alleged that the time of inspection carried out at the shop of the detenue, illegal stock of grains worth of Rs. 9,850/- was also seized by the Department. Therefore, it is alleged against the detenue that total Rs. 56,150/- of stock of grains was seized by the Department. Since the petitioner has indulged in the act of illegal activities against the public distribution system which is supplied at the concessional rate to the fair price shop card holders and thereby misappropriated the stock of grains worth of Rs. 1,46,176/- which was found at the time of inspection of the records, the licence of the petitioner was suspended for 90 days on 13.7.2012 and on 19.7.2012 an offence was registered, being CR No.3099 of 2012, before Modasa Police Station and there are all possibilities that the detenue may get the bail order and continue his prejudicial activities. Therefore, the respondent No.2 recorded his satisfaction so as to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities and hence the Authority has passed the impugned detention order under the Act.
3. Ms. Sneha A Joshi, 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 decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. She has submitted that, though, the representation dated 28.08.2012 was sent to the Authorities, the Central Government decided the same on 10th October, 2012 and therefore, there is delay in deciding the representation by the Central Government. In the present case the Central Government has taken long time in deciding the representation without any explanation. Therefore, the continuation of detention has become illegal and impermissible and the detention order may be quashed.
4. Mr. M. Iqbal A Shaikh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Government has submitted that there is no delay on the part of the Central Government in deciding the representation. Though, affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the Union of India, he has tried to explain the time consumed by the Union of India in deciding the representation by stating that the representation sent by the petitioner was received by the Central Government on 29.8.2012. Immediately, on 31.8.2012, the Union of India requested the State Authority to supply the information about the detenue. However, the same was received by the Central Government only on 3.10.2012. After considering the representation and material received from the State Government, the representation was decided on 10.10.2012 and, therefore, there is no delay on the part of the Authority in deciding the representation.
5 Though, there are no dates given in the affidavit filed by the State Government about the date of decision of the representation, Mr. Bhatt, learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, on instructions, submitted that the representation was decided by the Authority on 31.8.2012.
5. I have heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the affidavit filed by the State Government and the grounds of detention annexed with the detention order. Now considering the above facts, it appears that the State Government has taken about one month's time for forwarding the details which were called for by the Central Government. There is no explanation in the affidavit filed by the State Government that for what reasons the Authority did not send the details forthwith 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 23.07.2012 passed by respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar, 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.) pnnair