9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to detention order under Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the detention order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The petitioner was found in possession of kerosene suspected to be meant for distribution among weaker sections at subsidized rates. The Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed the suspicion. The District Magistrate, satisfied with the collusion between the petitioner and a firm engaged in black marketing, ordered detention to prevent prejudicial actions affecting the supply of essential commodities. The petitioner was detained accordingly. 2. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was no restriction on possessing white kerosene, but the grounds of detention mentioned lack of permit for storage or consumption. The District Magistrate clarified that the white kerosene found was actually blue kerosene turned white, justifying the absence of a permit. The contention regarding non-application of mind was rejected. 3. Another argument was raised that the kerosene purchased from an authorized dealer at market price did not warrant detention. The petitioner's regular purchase from the dealer was used to infer collusion. However, the petitioner's explanation during the raid and lack of knowledge about restrictions on blue kerosene usage were considered. The District Magistrate's inference of collusion lacked substantial evidence and failed to justify detention. 4. The judgment highlighted that the District Magistrate's satisfaction of collusion was based on weak grounds. There was no evidence of scarcity of white kerosene or unauthorized sales by the dealer. The petitioner's purchase at market price and lack of prior illegal activities regarding kerosene usage were crucial factors overlooked by the District Magistrate. The lack of substantial reasoning led to the detention order being deemed unreasonable and invalid. 5. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the detention order, and directed the immediate release of the petitioner, unless required in connection with another case. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing a reasonable and genuine basis for preventive detention, which was lacking in this case.
|
