When the order of bail was made absolute by the District Magistrate, the Assistant Public Prosecutor did number oppose the release of the petitioner on bail.
That, in brief is the background of the present writ petition.
The petitioner alleges that respondent No.
Respondent No.
Niren De, Solicitor General, A. G. Pudissery and M. R. Krishna Pillai, for the respondents.
The petitioners wife thereafter instructed a lawyer to companytact the petitioner who in turn tried to get in touch with the petitioner at Wanchiyoor Police Station, but did number succeed.
According to the petitioner, the board indicating nil stock had been exhibited in his shop, because 7 tins out of the available stock had been sold to one D. N. Siktar in regard to which a sale memo was being prepared when the raid took place, whereas the two remaining tins were in a damaged companydition and companyld number have been sold.
It is mainly on these grounds that the petitioner challenges the validity of the impugned order of his detention.
As from the 24th October, 1965 the said trade companyld number be carried on in Kerala without obtaining a licence.
The allegations made in the petition have been companytroverted by Mr. Devassy who is the Secretary in the Home Department of respondent No.
2, though in the relevant papers prepared in regard to the said search, numberreference was made to his presence.
1 and N. Paramasivan Nair, Deputy Superintendent of Police Civil Supplies Cell, Crime Branch, Trivandrum, as respondent No.
K. Ramamurthi, S. C. Agarwal, R. K. Garg and D. P. Singh, for the petitioner.
2 and who had purchased two tins of kerosene oil from the petitioner which were produced before the police officers for the purpose of showing that the tins were short of companytents.
2 was present.
The petitioner challenges the validity of the impugned order of detention mainly on the ground that it is mala fide, and has been passed as a result of the malicious and false reports which have been prepared at the instance of respondent No.
The Police searched the shop that day in the presence of respondent No.
Even so, the raid was carried out and F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner alleging that he had companymitted an offence by violating Rule 125 2 and 3 of the Rules read with clause 4 of the Kerosene Price Control Order, 1963.
The said order further shows that under Rule 30 4 of the Rules, respondent No.
Six barrels of oil were likewise seized.
At this interview, the advocate was given the detention order which had been served on the petitioner, and instructed to take suitable action to challenge the said order.
Respondent No.
This case was initiated after the search of the petitioners shop at Chalai.
In his companynter affidavit, the Home Secretary has, in a general way, denied all the allegations made in the petition.
When the petitioner asked respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. This petition was heard on the 11th February, 1966 and at the close of the hearing, we allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner should be released forthwith and indicated that our reasons would be pronounced later.
136 of 1965, Petition under Art.
The whole object of respondent No.
Accordingly, our present judgment gives our reasons for the order ,which has already been passed by us.
2 took the petitioner into custody by force and carried him to jail.
When the kerosene oil is thus received by him, the petitioner transfers the kerosene oil from barrels into empty tins purchased from the market and sells them to his customers.
The petitioner was then arrested and brought before the District Magistrate on the 30th September, 1965.
2, according to the petitioner, in securing the preparation of these false reports is to eliminate the petitioner from the field of wholesale business in kerosene oil in Trivandrum, so that his relatives may benefit and obtain the dealership of the ESSO Company.
1 bonafide and after full companysideration of the merits of the case.
2 has so managed that the said final report has number been submitted till the date of the present petition.
2 as to why he was being arrested, he refused to disclose the grounds.
The petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate before whom the F.I.R. had been filed, and was released by him on bail.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
In this case, all the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined, except the officer who had submitted the charge sheet.
Later, the advocate engaged by the petitioners wife was able to get in touch with the petitioner with the permission of the Home Secretary in the Central Jail at Trivandrum.
After the petitioner was released by the District Magistrate on the 21st October, 1965, he reached home at 4 oclock in the evening.
1, it was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the companymunity it was necessary to detain him.
These proceedings were companymenced on the 20th May, 1965.
In view of the fact that the petition filed by the Advocate in the Kerala High Court under the vague instructions of the petitioners wife companytained a very limited prayer, the petitioners advocate withdrew the said petition on the 27th October, 1965.
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Pending the trial of this case, the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch Food , Trivandrum, who is a subordinate of respondent No.
332 of 1965 before the District Magistrate, Trivandrum, on the 29th September, 1965.
2 caused to be initiated criminal proceedings against him in Criminal Case No.
The petitioner is a businessman who carries on wholesale business in kerosene oil as ESSO dealer and in provisions in his places of business at Trivandrum.
The charge against the petitioner set out in the First Information Report was that the petitioner had exhibited a board showing stock nil on the 20th May, 1965, at about 7 .00 p.m. in his wholesale shop at Chalai, Trivandrum when, in fact, there was stock available in his shop.
1, the State of Kerala, under Rule 30 1 b of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 hereinafter called the Rules by an order passed by it on the 20th October, 1965.
On this occasion also, when the petitioners shop was searched, respondent No.
2 actually went to the house of the petitioner when the petitioner was forcibly taken into custody and removed to the jail.
2 was present when his premises were searched, and that respondent No.
2 who has been impleaded to the present proceedings and against whom specific and clear allegations have been made in the petition, has number chosen to deny them on oath.
The said order recites that from the materials placed before respondent No.
None of the other 899 tins which were stored in the two rooms of the place of sale of the petitioner, were seized.
In support of the plea that his detention is malafide, the petitioner strongly relies on the fact that on the 24th October, 1965, the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1965 has companye into force and in companysequence unless the petitioner gets a licence, it would be impossible for him to carry on his business of kerosene oil and yet, the detention order ostensibly passed against him as a result of his activities alleged to be prejudicial in respect of his business in kerosene oil, companytinues to be enforced against him even after the Control Order has been brought into, operation.
The petitioner, G. Sadanandan, has been detained by respon dent No.
Accordingly, a writ petition was filed on the 22nd October, 1965.
In this case, it was alleged that the petitioner had violated R. 125 A of the Rules read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Kerosene Price Control Order, 1963, as well as had companymitted an offence under section 420, I.P.C. The F.I.R. in regard to this case was made by Narayan Pillai Sivasankaran Nair of Tampanoor, Trivandrum.
Ultimately, the present petition has been filed in this Court on behalf of the petitioner on the 20th November, 1965.
The purport of the companynter affidavit filed by the Home Secretary is that the impugned order of detention has been passed by respondent No.
The petitioner challenges the validity of this order by his present petition filed under Art.
In companynection with his whole sale business of selling kerosene oil, the petitioner receives kerosene oil either in bulk or in sealed tins from the ESSO companypany.
The petition further alleges that the second criminal companyplaint filed against the petitioner was the direct result of the F.I.R. by Narayan Pillai Sivasankaran Nair who and his brothers are the trade rivals of the petitioner and are closely related to respondent No.
The police party also searched the godown of the petitioner and took into custody 632 tins of kerosene oil.
It is companymon ground that the petitioner has number been granted a licence in that behalf.
70 of 1965 in the Court of the District Magistrate, Trivandrum.
Until the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1965 was promulgated, and brought into force on the 24th October, 1965, the petitioner was number required to take a licence for carrying on his business in kerosene oil.
Except the Sub Inspector of Police P.W.I. , and the Head Constable P.W. 2 , numberother witnesses supported the prosecution case, though in all five witnesses were examined for the prosecution.
During the companyrse of the search, the police seized one tin weighing 16 200 kgs.
Immediately thereafter, respondent No.
The petitioner companytends that though the case was posted several times for the submission of the final report by the prosecution, respondent No.
The petitioner was granted interim bail on the 30th September, 1965 by the District Magistrate, and finally released on bail on the ,execution of a bail bond on the 21st October, 1965.
The petitioner further alleges that the order of detention has been passed solely with the purpose of denying him the benefit of the order of bail which was passed in his favour by the District Magistrate on the 21st October, 1965.
To his present petition, the petitioner has joined respondent No.
Under these circumstances, the petitioners wife instructed her advocate to file a writ petition in the Kerala High Court for the production of the petitioner.
2 came in a jeep to the petitioners residence and took him into custody.
According to the petitioner, all this was done at the instance of N. Siva sankaran Nair who is a close relative of respondent No.
