1. By way of the present petition, the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 18.06.2012 (Annexure 'A'), passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara, 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 like kerosene 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 having shop of food-grains and it was found that the food-grains like wheat and rice were kept in gunny bags which are meant for selling through the licence holder, who were fair-price shops at concessional rate. It was found that the detenu was purchasing such food-grains from fair price shop owners and was stocking the same in Godown with the purpose to sell at higher rate and therefore, to prevent him from acting in any manner which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities, hence the authority has passed the impugned detention order under the Act.
3. Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner has stated that there is delay in deciding the representation by the Central Government. He has stated that representation dated 27.6.2012 was received by the Central Government on 9.7.2012 which came to be decided on 29.08.2012 and therefore, there is delay in passing the order.
Affidavit-in-reply has not been filed by the Central Government.
4. However, Mr. M. Iqbal A Shaikh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Central Government states that after receiving the representation dated 9.7.2012, the Central Government has called for the remarks from the Authority concerned by letter dated 11.7.2012. The same was received on 13.8.2012 and thereafter, the order of rejecting the representation was passed on 29.8.2012. It appears that the superior Authority had also taken about one month's time in supplying the details called for by the Central Government. The representation has been rejected by the Central Government after about 16 days.
5. 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.
6. In the result,this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of detention dated 18.06.2012 passed by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Baroda 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