Krunal Jigneshbhai Shah Through Pritiben Jigneshbhai Shah vs. District Magistrate, Surat

Facts

The petitioners challenged an order of detention dated April 26, 2022, passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act. The detention stemmed from a raid on December 14, 2021, at a warehouse where Neem Coated Urea, meant for agricultural purposes, was allegedly being sold for commercial use. An FIR was registered on December 22, 2021, under various sections of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, Essential Commodities Act, and IPC. Petitioners Jigneshbhai Vasantlal Shah (proprietor of Tirupati Corporation) and his son were arrested on January 7, 2022, and released on bail on January 12, 2022. They claimed no role was attributed to them in the FIR and that their implication was based on surmises. They also stated that their representation against the detention order, submitted on May 2, 2022, and received by the authority on May 4, 2022, received no reply.

Held

The Court allowed the petitions, quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention dated April 26, 2022. The primary reasoning for allowing the petitions was the failure of the competent authority to consider and respond to the representation submitted by the petitioners. The Court noted that the petitioners had submitted their representation on May 2, 2022, which was received by the competent authority on May 4, 2022. However, the State had neither dealt with the aspect of receipt nor decision on this representation. The Court emphasized that the representation ought to have reached the competent authority and the State Government immediately, as only the State Government could have considered it. This failure to address the representation was deemed a ground for allowing the petitions. Additionally, the Court referenced the principle that the detaining authority must serve all relevant documents considered for subjective satisfaction to enable the detenu to make an effective representation, citing Dharmista Bhagat v/s. State of Karnataka and Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra, which suggests that non-supply of legible copies of vital documents can vitiate detention. The Court ordered the petitioners-detenues to be set at liberty forthwith, provided they were not required in any other case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of detention dated April 26, 2022, passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, suffering from non-existent grounds and in-genuine satisfaction of the detaining authority, contrary to principles of natural justice and fair play. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the detention order was based solely on a single FIR and investigation, with no additional material to justify subjective satisfaction after their release on bail. They argued that a mere FIR registration cannot establish a nexus with activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of essential commodities. Furthermore, they asserted that their representation against the detention order, submitted to the District Magistrate and forwarded to other authorities, was not responded to, violating principles of natural justice. They also highlighted the non-supply of legible copies of vital documents like the panchnama, rendering the detention order illegal, citing precedents like Dharmista Bhagat v/s. State of Karnataka and Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra. Revenue's arguments: The detaining authority alleged that the petitioners, Jigneshbhai Vasantlal Shah and his son, did not hold licenses to sell the chemical compound (Neem Coated Urea) but were involved in its industrial sale for pecuniary benefit, selling it to Krishna Import and Export. They claimed the petitioners sold 1150 tonnes worth Rs. 2,17,12,000/- within six months, at a price significantly higher than the subsidized rate, and disguised the sales as 'Carbamide' to evade detection. The Union of India supported the detention order, stating the department had not received the representation submitted by the detenues.