9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (3) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t fixed for these commodities and did not grant any receipt for the same. (b) On 15-3-1967 it transpired from one Satyanarain Prasad a shopkeeper of Purnea Bus stand, that he (Shri Motilal Jain) sold him match boxes at Rs. 11/- per gross which was Rs. 2/- higher than the price fixed. This was also substantiated by Nagendra Ramoli, a shopkeeper of Purnea Court compound who had also been supplied match boxes at the higher rate by him (Shri Motilal Jain). (c) On 15-4-1967 it transpired from Chandradeb Sao, Shankerlal Modi, and Sitaram Sah, all of Gulab Bagh that they got supplies of sugar and maida from him in excess of the quantity allotted to them on ration cards at a price higher than those fixed by the Government. (d) On 7-5-1967 he sold kerosene oil to one Kishun Bhagat of Gulab Bagh at Rs. 12/- per tin (excluding cost of tin) which was higher than the price fixed by the Government. (e) On 4-7-1967 he sold sugar at Rs. 2/- per kg. to Shyamsunder Poddar and Jangli Singh of Dhamdaha. The price charged by him was much higher than the rate fixed by the Government in this regard. (f) On 7-8-1967 it was learnt from Nathu Sah, Chanderdeb Sah, Kusumlal Sah, and Ram Rattan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant and that set out in cl. (d) is non-existing and as such the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained. 6. On an examination of facts set out in cl. (a) of the order, it is seen that the name of the shopkeeper to whom the appellant is said to have sold match boxes and soap at a price higher than that fixed for these commodities is not mentioned. Neither the price fixed nor the price at which the appellant is said to have sold the match boxes and soap is mentioned. The futility of making representation against an unknown man in respect of an unspecified price can easily be imagined. There was no opportunity to the appellant to satisfy the Advisory Board that the alleged purchaser is a fictitious figure or that he is an enemy of his or that the information given by him should otherwise be not accepted. As things stood the appellant was left to attack a shadow. He could not also make any representation as regards the alleged sale or the price at which the goods were sold excepting making a bare denial of the accusations made against him. That is not all. The appellant definitely averred in his special leave application that the Government neither fixed the sale price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b Bagh. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that allegation is accepted as correct. The new case pleaded by the respondents is that the alleged sale was made to Kishun Bhagat of Village Kishanpur, P. S. Dhamdaha, and there was typographical mistake in mentioning the name of the purchaser in the grounds supplied to the detenu. This is a curious explanation. That apart, quite clearly the appellant could not have made any representation in respect of the new allegation leveled against him. Hence the ground mentioned in cl. (d) must be held to be non-existing. 8. It was strenuously urged on behalf of the respondents that even if the grounds mentioned in cls. (a) and (d) of the order of Government dated September 27, 1967 are ignored, still the detention of the appellant can be justified on the basis of the remaining grounds mentioned in that order. We have no hesitation in rejecting this contention as being wholly untenable. 9. It must be remembered that in this case we are dealing with the liberty of a citizen of this country. The power given to the State under the Act is an extraordinary power. It is exercisable under special conditions and is subject to definite li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e policy under lying the statute and in such cases the position would be the same as if one of these two grounds was irrelevant for the purpose of the Act or was wholly illusory and that would vitiate the detention order as a whole. 11. In Dwarka Dass Bhatia v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir 1957CriLJ316 , Bhatia was ordered to be detained on the ground that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The said order was based on the ground of alleged illicit smuggling by Bhatia of essential goods, such as shaffon cloth, zari and mercury to Pakistan. It was found that shaffon cloth and zari were not essential goods. It was not established that the smuggling attributed to Bhatia was substantially only of mercury or that the smuggling as regards shaffon cloth and Zari was of an inconsequential nature. On those facts this Court held that the order of detention was bad and must be quashed. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be properly based on all the reasons on which it purports to be based. If some out of those reasons are found to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
