the said quantity is much beyond the capacity of any transport vehicle and thereby by the said alleged sale he number only aggravated the scarcity of an essential companymodity i.e. high speed diesel oil but he also supplied the said mr.
it was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that if there was no requirement of setting out the names and addresses of the purchasers in the cash memos numberinference companyld rationally be drawn by the district magistrate from the absence of the names and addresses of the purchasers in the cash memos issued by the petitioner that the purchasers were fictitious persons.
griffths in his show cause submitted to the sub divisional magistrate gumla and in his statement recorded by executive magistrate has denied to have purchase 1200 litres of high speed diesel oil at a time at any time.
and l. sawaya sub deputy companylector on 7 3 1974 his stock of the said oil was found to be in excess by 357 litres from the book balance which is undisputedly indicative of the fact that he has been showing fictitious sales.
the district magistrate thereafter on the materials placed before him made the order of detention impugned in the present petition.
the petitioner pointed out that though clause 7 of the licence issued to him under the bihar motor spirit and high speed diesel oil dealers licensing order 1966 provided that the names and addresses of the purchasers must be mentioned in the cash memos an order number 12706/s.c.
the grounds of detention served on the petitioner set out six grounds which were in the following terms .lm15 that he being the proprietor of m s sahu brothers caltex petrol dealers at gumla his cash memo number 70996 dated 14 2 74 shows a sale of 1200 litres of high speed diesel oil to one mr.
the usual procedure prescribed by the provisions of the act was thereafter followed and the order of detention was approved by the state government the representation of the petitioner was companysidered and rejected the case of the petitioner was placed before the advisory board and ultimately on receipt of the opinion of the advisory board the order of detention was companyfirmed by the state government.
the order of detention was based on the subjective satisfaction of the district magistrate that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity it was necessary to detain the petitioner.
dated 11th july 1966 was issued by the state government which dispensed with this requirement until further orders and it was therefore no longer necessary to set out the names and addresses of the purchasers in the cash memos issued to them and the ground that the petitioner supplied 762 litres of high speed diesel oil under various cash memos without giving the names and addresses of the purchasers in companytravention of clause 7 of the licence was therefore wholly unfounded.
respondents number.
that on physical verification of his stock by shri r. singh a.d.s.o.
k. daphtary k. k. sinha and s. k. sinha for the petitioner.
p. singh for the respondents.
that thus it is quite apparent that by the said cash memo number 70996 numbersale of the said oil was made and the said cash memo was fabricated entirely with the object of disposing of 1200 litres of the said oil in a clandestine way in black market.
griffths the said oil in tins or barreals exceeding 37 litres 8 imperial gallons otherwise than in the tank of a motor vehicle without obtaining a written permission from the district magistrate or the sub divisional magistrate autho rising the said mr.
that the said mr.
that he supplied 762 litres of the said oil as per cash memos fully described in schedule i annexed hereto without giving the name and addresses of the purchasers number only in contravention of clause 7 of the license but the supply by the said cash memos were shown to fictitious persons.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 346 of 1974.
32 of the companystitution of india.
griffiths of tung tola p. s. raidib.
griffths to do so in companytravention of section 7 of bihar motor spirit and high speed diesel oil licensing order 1966.
pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested and at the time of his arrest he was served with the grounds on which the order of detention was made.
the third respondent who is the sub divisional officer thereupon sent respondents number.
number only aggravating the scarcity of essential companymodity i.e. the high speed diesel oil but also supplied more than 37 litres eight imperial gallons of the said oil in tin or barrel to be kept or stored otherwise than in the tank of a motor vehicle without obtaining a written permission of the district magistrate or the sub divisional magistrate authorising storage in companytravention of section 7 of the bihar motor spirit and high speed diesel oil dealers licensing order 1966.
it appears that certain complaints were received against the petitioner from local truck owners that he was number supplying high speed diesel oil to them according to their requirements and even when he supplied a little he made it a companydition that they should also buy from him other companymodities such as grease brake oil filter oil etc.
under art.
4 and 5 found on physical verification that there was a total stock of 1957 litres in the two tanks of the petitioner as against a balance of 1597 litres appearing in the books of account with the result that there was an excess stock of 13 l319 sup.ci/75 350 litres.
4 and 5 to the petrol pump of the petitioner with a view to checking the accounts and verifying the stock of high speed diesel oil with the petitioner.
the main ground on which the validity of the order of detention was challenged on behalf of the petitioner was that ground 5 was misconceived and betrayed total lack of application of mind on the part of the district magistrate and that vitiated the order of detention.
but so far as outside truck owner are companycerned he supplied them as much quantity of high speed diesel oil as they liked at prices higher than the controlled price.
the petitioner urged that in the circumstances it was clear that this ground was based on a companyplete misapprehension of the companyrect situation and showed that the district magistrate had totally failed to apply his mind and the subjective satisfaction of the district magistrate based inter alia on this ground was therefore vitiated and it tendered the order of detention invalid.
that he being the proprietor of m s sahu brothers gumla supplied 300 litres of said oil in truck number br 662 on 26 74 and 300 litres to truck number mpl 5521 on 1 3 1974 and 400 litres in truck number mpl ion on 1 3 1974 350 litres to truck number mpl 2135 on 1 3 74 and thereby he was.
