Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mayank Singhal S/O Shri Ashok Singhal ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 December, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia, Amar Nath Kesharwani
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
RESERVED ON 28th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 24478 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MAYANK SINGHAL S/O SHRI ASHOK SINGHAL THROUGH
HIS MATERNAL UNCLE SHRI RAJESH GOYAL R/O 12/3
PARSI MOHALLA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH CHHABRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ASSISTED BY SHRI MUDIT MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
1. SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MOTI TABELA
2.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION RAUJI BAZAR
3.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI BHASKAR AGRAWAL, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 28th November, 2022
Delivered on : 07th December, 2022
This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE VIVEK
-2-
RUSIA passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner, being a detenue has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through his maternal uncle Shri Rajesh Goyal challenging the order of detention dated 10.10.2022 passed by respondent No.2 / District Magistrate under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1980).
02. Facts of the case in short are as under:-
2.1. On 21.09.2022 at 6:00 pm, a team headed by the Assistant Supply Officer conducted an enquiry at 18, Navlakha near Agrasen Square, Loha Mandi Road, Indore and found this petitioner along with three others persons namely Wasim Khan, Vikas Arya and Rafiq Pathan in the activity of trading and transportation of large quantity of grains without having a valid license. On the basis of the information given to the Police Station -
Raoji Bazar, an F.I.R. at Crime No.427/2022 has been registered against the petitioner and three others on 01.10.2022 under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
2.2. Based on the above material a representation was made to the District Magistrate, Indore by the District Supply Controller, Indore requesting for initiation of detention proceedings against the petitioner for the purpose of detention under the Act of 1980. Along with the said representation, entire documents were annexed by the District supply officer. The District Magistrate recorded the statement of the Junior Supply Officer and passed the impugned order of detention under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1980. A copy of the detention order along with grounds was supplied to the petitioner on 10.10.2022, by obtaining his signature and -3- thereafter, he was taken into custody. The information about the detention order was given to his family member.
2.3. According to the petitioner, the maternal uncle of the petitioner was informed about the detention of the petitioner on 11.10.2022 and he immediately made a request vide letter dated 13.10.2022 to the detaining authority for the supply of detention order as well as grounds of detention. He also submitted an application before respondent No.2 seeking permission to meet the petitioner. When such applications were not considered, he made a representation to the Under Secretary, Government of India, Home Affairs, New Delhi on 17.10.2022. He again made representation to respondent No.2 on 19.10.2022 seeking permission to meet the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the detention order dated 10.10.2022. 2.4. Vide order dated 01.11.2022, this Court has directed the Collector to entertain the application dated 13.10.2022 submitted for meeting with the petitioner. Thereafter, the maternal uncle of the petitioner was permitted to meet him.
2.5. Meanwhile, respondents have filed a return justifying the action of the District Magistrate, Indore in passing the order of detention. A copy of the detention order dated 10.10.2022 and grounds of detention have been filed along with the return. Meanwhile, the Advisory Board has also confirmed the order of detention, and accordingly, the Government has approved the said order detaining the petitioner for a period of six months. Submissions of Senior Counsel of the petitioner:
03. Shri R. S. Chhabra learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed inter alia on the ground that all the documents on which the District -4- Magistrate formed an opinion to detain the petitioner under the Act of 1980 were not supplied to the petitioner or his family members, hence, on this ground alone, the order of detention is liable to set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Mohammad Zakir v/s Delhi Administration & Others reported in (1982) 3 SCC 216.
3.1. Shri Chhabra further submits that a representation was submitted to the District Magistrate on 17.10.2022 which has not been decided till date, hence, impugned order is liable to be quashed and to support this submission he cites the judgments delivered the cases of Dr. Rahamatullah v/s State of Bihar & Another reported in (1981) 4 SCC 559 & Shakil Ahmed Ansari v/s Union of India reported in 1986 (38) DRJ (DB), and submits that the impugned order of detention is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
3.2. Shri Chhabra further submits that at the most, the petitioner is said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act which is a bailable offence and he was released by the police after registration of the F.I.R., hence, he is bound by the bail conditions, therefore, there is no need to keep the petitioner under detention. In similar facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (Patel) v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others [Writ Petition No.12072 of 2022] has set aside the order of detention. By way of the last submission, learned Senior Counsel submits that by way of notification dated 27.09.2020, sub-section 1-A has been inserted in Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, whereby the supply of foodstuffs, cereals, pulses, potato, edible oilseeds and oil may be regulated only under extraordinary circumstances which may include war, -5- famine, extraordinary price rise, natural calamity etc. Therefore, in view of the said amendment, no offence even under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioner and the detention order is liable to be set aside.
3.4. Shri Chhabra also submits that the petitioner is not required to challenge the order of confirmation passed by the State Government as the law of pleadings does not apply to a petition challenging the order of detention and if this Court sets aside the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, the order of detention passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh gets set aside. So far the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are concerned, Shri Chhabra submits that only registration of F.I.R. under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act in the year 2021 cannot be termed as a criminal record of the petitioner especially when the Court has not taken any cognizance against him, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has strong criminal antecedent to justify the order of detention.
Submissions of learned Government Advocate:
04. Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents / State refuted that the present petition is devoid of substance and liable to be dismissed as the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law and there is no violation of any provisions of the Act of 1980. The petitioner was supplied the detention order, grounds of detention and all the documents relied on by the District Magistrate which is evident from the acknowledgment given by the petitioner. The report submitted by the Incharge Supply Controller dated 10.10.2022 and the statement of the Junior Supply Officer were annexed along with the grounds of detention, therefore, there is a compliance of Section 8 of the -6- Act of 1980.
4.1. Learned Government Advocate further contended that so far as the representation of the petitioner is concerned, it was not submitted to the competent authority and a copy of the same is not filed along with the writ petition. The petitioner filed the correct copy of the representation as an additional document, hence, the respondents had no occasion to comment on it. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner submitted the representation to the District Magistrate and Under Secretary, Government of India, Home Affairs who is not a party in this petition, whereas against the order of detention, the representation is liable to be submitted before the Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Khadya Aapoorti Evam Upbhogta Sanrakshan Department and before the Advisory Board. Now the approval of the detention of the petitioner has been given by the Advisory Board, and thereafter, the order of confirmation has been passed by the Government. In support of his contention, the learned Government Advocate relies on a recent judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Mahmood Rangrez v/s Union of India & Others (Writ Petition No.19623 of 2022) decided on 15.11.2022, whereby it has been held that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that once an F.I.R. has been lodged then no orders of prevention can be passed because the F.I.R. has been lodged for an offence that is committed and order under Section 3 of the Act of 1980 is an order of prevention of future crime.
4.2. Shri Agrawal, learned Government Advocate also submits that in the year 2021 also the petitioner was found committing the same offence for which an FIR was registered against him. Since offences under Sections 3 and 7 are bailable, hence, he is repeating the offence, therefore, -7- he has rightly been controlled by passing of the order of detention. Hence, no interference is called for and Writ Petition be dismissed. Appreciation and conclusion:
05. The petitioner is seeking quashment of the order of detention on technical grounds. In case of detention, technicality plays an important role because the detention of a person amounts to curtailing of fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was not supplied the documents relied on by the detaining authority before passing the order of detention. The respondents came up with a case that an order of detention, grounds of detention and document were supplied to the petitioner but according to the petitioner his maternal uncle was not permitted to meet him, therefore, no representation could be properly submitted by him to the competent authority.
06. It is evident from the documents filed along with the return viz the detention order, grounds for detention and report along with all documents, all bear acknowledgment with the signature of the petitioner, therefore, it is the untenable submission that nothing was supplied to the petitioner.
07. Apart from that for similar offences, the petitioner was found indulged in the year 2021, an FIR was registered, he was released on bail, but he has again repeated the offence, hence, the submissions of Shri Chabra, learned Senior counsel cannot be accepted that he is bound by the condition of bail and his detention is not warranted. The detaining authority rightly concluded that his detention is necessary to prevent him from repeating the offence. The Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 has been promulgated only to prevent the black marketing of essential commodities. The Advisory board has rightly approved the impugned detention order of -8- the petitioner.
08. In this case, the petitioner has not come up with the defence that he had the licence or permission to store or transport a large quantity of food grains. The petitioner was found on the spot with the grains loaded in the Auto Riksha for which he has failed to give any valid explanation. If the detention order is quashed on technical grounds it would encourage the criminals and the very purpose of enacting the Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 would be frustrated. Once the detention order has been upheld by the Advisory board and confirmed by the State Government, in our opinion, no interference is warranted with the detention order.
09. As per the prosecution case, on 30.09.2021, the firm of the petitioner, M/s Shyam Sundarlal Goyal, 96 RNT Marg, Chhavni was searched by Junior Supply Officer and others. A loading vehicle bearing registration No.MP 09 GH 7387 was found loaded with 43 bags of rice and the weight was 22 quintal. The petitioner has disclosed that he purchased this rice from a fair-price shop. Accordingly, he was found indulging in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause 13.2 of the Madhya Pradesh Sarvajanik Vitran Pranali (Niyantran) Aadesh, 2015 and an F.I.R. has been registered on 03.10.2021 at Police Station - Indore Rural. Despite the registration of the aforesaid crime, again the petitioner repeated the same offence for which an F.I.R. under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been registered at Crime No.427/2022 at Police Station - Indore Urban on 01.10.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is constantly found involved in the commission of the same offences, hence, his detention under the National Securities Act is warranted and if he is released then there is a possibility -9- that he will repeat the same offence.
10. Shri Chhabra, learned Senior Counsel vehemently argued that representation submitted by the petitioner on 19.10.2022 has not been decided by the District Magistrate so far, therefore, the detention order is liable to be set aside. Copy of representations (Annexure-P/5 & P/6) were submitted only to meet the detenue in order to seek information and to initiate legal proceedings. The representations were submitted by Rajesh Goyal who was permitted to meet the petitioner on 02.11.2022 (Annexure- R/4). Therefore, these two representations were not filed seeking quashment of the detention order, therefore, the law laid down in the case of Mohammad Zakir (supra) is of no help to the petitioner.
11. Looking at the continuous violation of provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and the Aadesh of 2015, the detention of the petitioner is desired, hence, no case for interference is made out in the matter.
In view of the above, Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH
Date: 2022.12.07 17:36:22 +05'30'