He was indulging in illegal purchase and sale of blue kerosene oil in black market since last five to six years.
The High Court accordingly set aside the order of detention.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT An affidavit in reply was filed by the Detaining Authority, inter alia, companytending that the petition filed by the detenu was number maintainable at law.
He, therefore, companyld number be detained, number served with the order or grounds of detention in support of the order.
The Court, however, passed the following order The matter relates to grant of relief by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution at pre arrest stage.
The order was, therefore, affixed at a companyspicuous place at the residence of the detenu on July 30, 2006 and a panchanama was drawn by the Police Inspector of Sakkardara Police Station, Nagpur.
Two weeks time is granted, as a last chance, for filing companynter affidavit.
In spite of all these steps, the detenu companytinued to indulge in black marketing activities of essential companymodity and the Detaining Authority was satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential companymodities to the companymunity, it was necessary to detain him and accordingly the order was passed.
By the impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the petition filed by the detenu writ petitioner and set aside the order of detention dated July 27, 2006 passed by the Commissioner of Police Nagpur City under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
It was stated that the order of detention was approved by the State Government.
HIGH COURT JUDGMENT The High Court, by the impugned order, held that the detenu was number entitled to know the grounds on which the order of detention had been passed, unless he surrendered.
Immediately on the next day i.e. on 27.7.2006 detention order was passed by Respondent No.
The legality of said order is questioned by the Authorities in the present appeal.
According to the appellants, in accordance with sub section 3 of Section 3 of the Act, the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police was approved by the State Government.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 417 OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRL NO.
This Court had issued numberice on February 12, 2007.
This companyplaint was forwarded by Respondent No.2 to DCP 1 Nagpur on 26.7.2006 for necessary enquiry and action.
Certain cases were also registered against the said Bhaurao under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as 1955 Act .
The said companyplaint dated 20.7.2006 was addressed to Respondent No.2.
FACTUAL MATRIX The case of the appellants is that one Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande detenu was running a business of transportation of petroleum products and had fleet of tankers for carrying on the said occupation.
Other reliefs were also sought.
The High Court, with respect, went wrong in observing that once a detenu had made allegations against the police atrocities and custodial violence, the Detaining Authority ought to have waited till the inquiry was companyducted and report submitted.
WRIT PETITION The detenu, without submitting to the order of detention and surrendering, filed Writ Petition No.
Since the detenu was number available, grounds of detention along with relevant documents also companyld number be served upon him.
List thereafter.
A companyy of the companymunication 26.7.2006 was also forwarded to the petitioner.
It was also stated that the detenu had executed a bond under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for good behaviour.
On merits, it was companytended on behalf of the Detaining Authority that the detenu was indulging in black marketing of kerosene oil which was an essential companymodity and several cases had been registered against him.
It was, therefore, submitted that the petition was liable to be dismissed, particularly when the detenu absconded and the order of detention along with grounds of detention and other documents companyld number be personally served and companyld number be executed.
The Government decided the period of detention only after the opinion of the Advisory Board under Section 12 of the Act.
583 OF 2007 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
Affidavit in reply was thereafter filed.
372 of 2006 in the High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated July 27, 2006 being illegal, unwarranted and vitiated by mala fide.
The detenu somehow came to know about the order of detention being passed again him and absconded himself.
Moreover, the entire proceedings of detention were submitted to the Advisory Board companystituted under Section 10 of the Act as required by law.
PREVIOUS ORDERS On February 12, 2007, when the matter was placed for admission hearing, numberice was issued and was made returnable within three weeks.
On August 13, 2007, four weeks time was sought by the detenu for filing companynter affidavit.
The High Court found companysiderable force in the submission.
On December 13, 2007, the Registry was directed to list the matter for final hearing in the first week of February, 2008 on a number miscellaneous day and that is how the matter is before us.
The detenu got the information about the order of detention, absconded himself and the order of detention companyld number be served upon him.
The present appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra and others against the sole respondent original petitioner against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench on October 17, 2006 in Writ Petition No.
372 of 2006.
