[1] By way of this petition, the detenu has challenged the order of District Magistrate, Vadodara dated 28.09.2011 passed in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ("P.B.M. Act" for short) detaining him.
[2] Inspection of the premises of the detenu was carried out by the competent Authority and the detenu was found to be involved in unauthorized activity of selling essential goods. Thereafter, the detenu came to be detained by the Authority vide impugned order.
[3] Though the detenu has challenged the order of detention by this petition on various counts, learned advocate appearing for the detenu has petitioner had made representation dated 10.10.2011 to the State Government and Central Government. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the detenu that the State Government and Central Government has not considered the representation. It is also submitted that petitioner is not concerned black marketing of essential commodities. It is further submitted that the detaining authority has not forwarded the report and the facts to the State Government and merely on assumption and presumption without considering any material on record, the detention order was passed which has rendered the continued detention illegal. Learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied on the case of Rajindra v/s. Commissioiner of Police, Nagpur Division reported in 1994 Suppl (2) SCC 716 in support of above submission .
[4] It is submitted by learned advocate appearing for Union of India that representation is not received within stipulated time and hence, no decision with regard to the representations made by the detenu could be taken.
[5] There is no explanation by the State Government and Central Government in not considering the representation made by the petitioner. Hence, there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the standing Counsel for the Central Government that the representation could not be considered. In the case of Rajindra (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in para 2 as under :
".......An effort was made by the learned Additional Solicitor General to persuade us to adjourn the matter to enable the Central Government to produce the file for our perusal. It appears that of late the Central Government does not show that sense of responsibility which is expected of it while dealing with detention cases, namely, of filing a counter in time before the Court dealing with the Habeas Corpus petition. Needless to say that the Central Government should be alive to the need to act promptly in such detention cases where the liberty of an individual is concerned. The Court is expected to go by the pleadings and the Central Government is expected to place the factual material in connection with the detention order by filing a counter-affidavit so that the petitioner has an opportunity to meet with that factual information. The indulgence shown by the courts in pursuing the file seems to have given an impression that the Central Government is under no obligation to file a counter affidavit to explain the delay. We propose to remove this impression once and for all if it persists and to impress upon the Central Government that it is under obligation tofile its counter within the time permitted by the Court failing which the case may go by default. Let it be clearly understood that production of the file is not a substitute for a counter to be filed by the Central Government. The Court peruses the file not to absolve the Central Government of its responsibility to file a counter but to satisfy its conscience if it notices ambiguities in the Government's stand. If the Courts have shown indulgence by perusing the file where affidavit is not filed for good reason, let that indulgence not be misused by construing it to be a licence to dispense with the obligation to file a return."
[6] Taking into consideration the above fact and considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajindra (supra), in the opinion of this Court, sufficient or cogent reasons are not given for non-consideration of representation of the detenu by the Central Government and State Government. Hence, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
[7] In view of the above discussion the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara dated 28.09.2011 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. Direct service is permitted.
[M.D.
Shah,J.] satish Top