Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) which is an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, or
(ii) with respect to which provisions have been made in any such other law as is referred to in Clause (a), with a view to making gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of that Act or other law aforesaid.

A mere look at the aforesaid provision shows that only in given contingencies, power is given to the appropriate authority to detain person under the Act The detaining authority has to be satisfied of course subjectively with respect to the detenu that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, it is necessary so to do. Therefore, the emphasis is on the need to removing the detenu from harm's way as that maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community goes on unimpaired, meaning thereby, that the detenu must be indulging in such nefarious activities which would, if not insulated against, would result in disruption of supply of essential commodities to the community. Thus, the legislature envisages preventive detention of the detenus who were, if not detained, likely to continue with their nefarious activities which would have pernicious effect of diversion through unauthorised channel, supplies of essential commodities which are meant to serve the needs of the community. Even apart from that, explanation to Section 3(1) in terms lays down that the expression 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community' would mean - any of the activities listed in clauses (a) and/or (b) of the Explanation. As the explanation seeks to define the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community' and is not an inclusive explanation, only these nefarious activities of the detenu which fall in either Clause (a) or (b) or both can be validly pressed in service by the detaining authority for basing the order of detention against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Act. So far as Clause (a) is concerned, the material before the detaining authority must show that the detenu was committing or instigating to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or in the alternative, the material must show that the detenu was committing or instigating any person to commit any offence under any other law for the time being in force relating to the control of the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community. So far as the aforesaid provisions in Clause (a) of the Explanation go, Mr. Trivedi for the respondents sought to place reliance on the first part of Clause (a), and submitted that ground No. 12 furnished data to indicate that the detenu had committed an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and, therefore, ground No. 12 would become relevant under the first part of Clause (a) of the Explanation. Mr. Trivedi did not press in service the second part of the Clause (a) of the Explanation and in our view, rightly so, because the second part would apply only in cases where the material indicates that the detenu had committed or instigated any person to commit any offence under any other law for the time being in force relating to the control of the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community or which sought to regulate commerce or trade. It cannot be gainsaid that the Food Adulteration Act is any other law for the time being in force. However, it is not a law which relates to the control of the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community. It is a Jaw which deals with control of the quality of production rather than mere control of the production. Therefore, any alleged breach of the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act would not be covered by the second part of Clause (a) of the Explanation. However, Mr. Trivedi pitched his case on the first part of Clause (a) of the Explanation for making ground No. 12 relevant. He submitted that by manufacturing adulterated essential commodity, the detenu has committed a breach of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and it will become an offence under Section 7 thereof. In order to highlight this contention, he invited our attention in the Essential Commodities Act. Section 3(1) thereof provides that "if the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, or for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations, it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein". Under Section 5 of the said Act, the Central Government is authorised to delegate its powers under Section 3 by a notified order in favour of any State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government, as may be specified in the direction. In exercise of the powers delegated to the State of Gujarat by Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, read with Section 3(1) thereof, the State of Gujarat has promulgated the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981. Mr. Trivedi submitted that any breach of the said Order would attract Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act which deals with penalties. It provides that if any person contravenes, whether knowingly, intentionally or otherwise, any order made under Section 3, he shall be liable to be punished as directed by the said section. It cannot be disputed that any breach of any of the clauses of the Order in question, would clearly attract Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1.955 and once that is demonstrated, the first part of Clause (a) of the Explanation would get attracted. The short question is whether breach of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can be said to be covered by any of the clauses of the Order. If it is found that it is as covered, then ground No. 12 would become relevant under the first part of Clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 3(1) of the Act. With that end in view, we have to scan through relevant provisions of the Order. The preamble of the Order recites that whereas the Government of Gujarat is of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient so to do for maintaining supplies of certain essential commodities and for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with the order of the Government of India, the Order in question is promulgated. It, therefore, becomes at once clear that the scope and ambit of the Order is to ensure maintenance of supplies of essential commodities and for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, Thus, the provisions underlying the Order have provided maintenance of supply channel of essential commodities as that they can be made available at fair prices to the persons for whom they are meant. There is no indication therein about maintenance of quality of such essential commodities. But even that apart, when we asked Mr. Trivedi for the respondents to point out any relevant clause of the Order which can be said to have been committed breach of by the detenu by allegedly indulging in adulterating the groundnut oil during the process of his manufacture at his Mills as alleged in ground No. 12, he submitted that clause 1 read with clause 2 of the Order would be relevant for that purpose. When we turn to clause 3 of the Order, we find that it deals with licensing of the dealers and producers. It lays down that on and after the 20th day of April 1961, no person shall carry on business as dealer in (a) edible oilseeds including groundnut in shell, edible oils including hydrogenated vegetable oils, foodgrains, pulses, khandsari and sugar, if the stock of such essential article in his possession at any time exceeds the quantities specified, against it in the table below; and (b) cement or petroleum products, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under this Order. Under Sub-clause (2) of clause 3, it is laid down that on and after the 20th day of April, 1981, no person shall carry on business as a producer in essential article except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under the Order. Mr. Trivedi then took us to the pro forma of licence which can be granted to a manufacturer or producer of essential commodities, i.e. groundnut oil in the present case. That is found at form 'B' annexed to the Order. In this statutory pro forma licence, various terms and conditions are provided which the licence-holder as a producer of essential commodities has to comply with. When we turn to those relevant statutory terms and conditions of the licence as found in the pro forma, we find that nowhere it is indicated that manufacturer of essential commodities shall maintain particular standard or quality of the essential commodities manufactured by him. In fact, any quality control seems to be totally foreign to the scope of any of the terms and conditions of form 'B' of the licence and it is understandably so because the Order deals with control of quantity and not quality of essential commodity and ensures its proper distribution and supply amongst the consumers the members of the community for whom essential supply is required to be regulated. That is the reason why in none of the conditions laid down in the pro forma licence - Form B, of the licence is be given to the manufacturer of essential commodity, maintenance of quality of essential commodity is insisted upon. When we turn to clause 8 of the Order, we find an injunction therein that no holder of a licence issued under this Order or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of the terms or conditions of a licence issued to him. It is, therefore, obvious that if any of the terms and conditions of the licence is committed breach of, by the holder of the licence, he would be held to have committed an offence as contemplated by Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and could make him liable to be prosecuted for the same. As maintenance of quality and standard of manufacture of essential commodity is not even provided for in the terms and conditions of the pro forma licence as indicated by form 'B', it cannot be said that if manufacturer of essential commodity commits adulteration during the manufacturing process of the essential commodity or even thereafter, he becomes liable to be prosecuted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. May be the act of adulteration may expose him to the music under the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act which is entirely a different enactment. But so far as breach of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act is concerned, the said ground would not be covered by Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and cannot be pressed in service as indicating an offence under the Essential Commodities Act. Consequently, the alleged breach of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act as indicated in ground No. 12 is not shown to have been covered by Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and, therefore, that ground would clearly be extraneous to the scope and ambit of the first part of Clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 3(1) of the Act.