Indeed Mr. D. P. Singh companyld number advance any other ground, since it was apparent that, if the allegations companytained in the grounds of detention were true, the petitioner was a blackmarketeer and profiteer and it would number be open to this Court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction in cases of this kind to enquire into the truth or falsity of the grounds of detention.
the validity of the detention.
companysidered and rejected by the State Government and the Court, therefore.
The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition challenging.
These grounds related to the incident of 22nd April, 1974 when the petitioner had sold two ampoules of pathedine and one bottle of ether at prices exceeding those shown in the current list of prices in companytravention of paragraph 15 2 of the Drug Price Control Order, 1970 and refused to issue cash memo in respect of these sales though required to do so under paragraph 22 of that order and it was on the basis of these grounds of detention that the Dis trict Magistrate had arrived at the requisite subjective satisfaction leading to the making of the order of detention.
Chharupia ka ether bees rupia men bechta hun Ropular Medical, Bariat u, paraded him through the streets in a rickshaw with a rope tied around his waist.
Now, ordinarily the Court would have acted on this statement made by the Deputy Collector, Ranchi on oath, but numberdate was given in the affidavit.
The State Government should have immediately thereafter proceeded to companysider the representation of the petitioner and decided whether or number to companyfirm the order of detention under section 12, sub section 1 but numbersuch action was taken by the State Government for some time.
The State Government thereafter placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board on 9th August, 1974 as required by section 10.
The only ground urged by Mr. D. P. Singh, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, against the validity of the detention was that the State Government had failed to companysider the representation of the petitioner and to make the order of companyfirmation within a reasonable time and the detention of the petitioner had, therefore.
It appears that the representation of the petitioner against the.
in reply as to when the representation of the petitioner was.
become invalid.
was in companytravention of paragraph 15 2 of the Drug Price Control Order, 1970.
This statement was made in the affidavit in reply which was sworn by the Deputy Collector, Ranchi on 14th October, 1974.
The petitioner, who was present at the shop, asked Vijoy Shanker and R. N. P. Dube to companye at 8.30 p.m. and stated that he would then be able to supply the medicines to them.
When asked by Vijoy Shankar and R. N. P. Dube to give his name, the petitioner falsely and deliberately gave his name as Sailendra Kumar Gupta though his real name was Satya Deo Prasad Gupta.
The reference here obviously was to the representation of the petitioner, because paragraph 26 of the petition to which this was a reply alleged that the State Government had number so far companysidered the repre sentation of the petitioner resulting in a clear violation of the provisions of the Act.
3/ as against the price of 90 paise per empoule shown in the current price list and for the bottle of ether, which companytained 450 grms.,
ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
order of detention was number received until, this date and it companyld number, therefore, be forwarded to the Advisory Board at the time when the papers relating to the case of the petitioner were forwarded to it.
The New Republic, a local newspaper, published in its issue dated 27th April, 1974, a photograph of the petitioner as he was being paraded in this procession.
It appears that on the following day, that is, 23rd April, 1974, a group of persons claiming to be representatives of a body known as Nao Nirman Samiti came to the petitioners shop, forcibly took him out and after placing a garland of shoes around his neck and affixing a placard displaying the slogan Main black marketeer hun.
6.85 shown in the current price list.
This incident exemplied the wrath and anger of the people against the petitioner as they felt that he was black marketing and profiteering in such essential companymodities as medicines and drugs.
The District Magistrate, Ranchi thereafter issued an order of detention under section 3 2 iii of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 directing that Sailendra Kumar Gupta that being the name given by the petitioner to Vijoy Shankar and R. N. P. Dube at the time when they made purchases from him should be detained as it was necessary so to do with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
The petitioner charged for these two ampoules of pathedine Rs.
Rajesh Prasad Singh and R. K. Jain for the Petitioner P. Singh for the Respondents.
This Dwarika Prasad Sahu V. State of Bihar, W. P. 346 of 1974, decided on 12 11 1974.
Amongst the medicines so supplied were two ampoules of pathedine and one bottle of ether.
448 of 1974.
P. Singh.
Vijoy Shankar and Dube accordingly visited the shop again at 8.30 p.m. when the petitioner supplied most of the medicines mentioned in the prescription.
The petitioner also refused to issue cash memo in respect of the two ampoules of pathedine and one bottle of ether supplied by him, though he was bound to do so under paragraph 22 of the Drug Price Control Order, 1970.
This order of detention had, however, to be cancelled since the real name of the petitioner was Satya Deo Prasad Gupta and number Sailendra Kumar Gupta as mentioned in the order of detention.
The District Magistrate then issued another order dated 11th June, 1974 of detention under section 3 2 iii of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
he charged Rs.
Subsequently, however, on 16th August, 1974 the representation of the petitioner was received and the State Government immediately sent it to the Advisory Board for its companysideration.
The Advisory Board, after companysidering the grounds of detention, the other material placed before it and the representation of the petitioner made a report dated 20th August, 1974 stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause to detain the petitioner.
20/as against the price of Rs.
Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested on 11th July, 1974 and at the time of his arrest, grounds of detention were served on him.
the attention of the Court was drawn to a statement made by the Deputy Collector, Ranchi in paragraph 15 of his affidavit in reply that the State Government fully, rightly and sympathetically companysidered the petition of the petitioner.
When the petition originally came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court companysisting of Chandrachud, J, and one of us Bhagwati, J. on 11th November.
