1. This petition under Article 226 read with Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 2nd December, 2011 passed by respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Vadodara, in exercise of powers conferred under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ( “PBM Act” for short) as being invalid, null and void and violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. While assailing the above order, learned advocate for the petitioner emphatically relied on the main ground that the Central Government did not decide the representation till date and the State Government has not filed any affidavit. He also contended that the Central Government has not approved the order of detention passed by the detaining authority in stipulated period and the detaining Authority has mechanically exercised the powers conferred upon him under the Act. He has also contended that there was no material available with the Detaining Authority to indicate as to how the maintenance of supplies of fortified Kerosene was disturbed in any manner. He has contended that the detaining Authority has not forthwith reported the fact of detention to the State Government and, therefore, the order shall not remain in force for more than 12 days. Therefore, the order of detention is liable to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 684 in the case of Rajammal Vs. State of Tamilnadu and it is submitted that the authority is duty bound to give a justifiable explanation when the matter involves breach of fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India and admittedly, the representation is not decided. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 2 months. The Central Government has not at all considered the representation of the petitioner. Prima facie, there is no reason to detain the petitioner in custody. Therefore, detenu is required to be released.
learned advocate. He submitted that the Central Government called for some relevant documents from the State Government which was not submitted and therefore the representation could not be decided.
4. Learned APP also opposed the petition of the petitioner.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned advocates for respective parties and considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred above, I deem it just and proper to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 2nd December, 2011, passed by the authority.
6. In view of the above discussion the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara dated 2.12.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case by the Authority. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
( M.D.Shah, J ) srilatha