ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J
1. In this writ pelition, the detention order passed by the first respondent in proceedings No.CS.6/527/ 99, dated 7-6-1999 ordering the detention of Rajkumar Agarwal, brother of the writ petitioner, under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds.
2. According to the petitioner who is the brother of the detenu, the first respondent-detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention detaining his brother basing on two grounds/incidents, the first ground being :
“On 21-5-1995 at about 6.30 a.m., the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, Adilabad District intercepted a lorry bearing its Registration No.AAA-7844 with 100 qtls. of rice at Bhainsa-Belthoroda Road proceeding towards Maharashtra State. Perusal of the release certificate issued by the Collector, Nizamabad disclosed that the same was issued in the name of M/s. Balaji Rice Mill, Jankampet, Nizamabad District belonging to you on 12-5-1995 for the transportation of 100 qtls. of raw-rice to sell at Bhainsa only, but the destination ‘Belthoroda’ was added to the Release Certificate by you only for your convenience to transport the rice to Maharashtra State unauthorisedly.”
3. The second ground indicated in the impugned detention order dated 7-6-1999 is :
“On 31-1-1999, 4-2-1999, 2-3-1999, 31-4-1999, the Inspector of Police,
Vigilance Cell (CS) Dept., Adilabad District along with his staff was checking vehicles proceeding towards Maharashtra State for unearthing unauthorised., transportation of foodgrains at Sirgapur and Bhainsa, your brother Sri Dilip Kumar Agaarwal who has gone on a motor cycle for survey of the route to have a smooth passage of your paddy/rice lorries to Maharashtra State, having noticed the checking of vehicles by Inspector of Police, Vigilance Celt (CS) Department, Adilabad District, resulted in retreat of your paddy/rice lorries.”
4. Petitioner complained that on the basis of these incidents, the detaining authority-first respondent reached to a conclusion that the detenu is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodities essential to the community in the Slate of Andhra Pradesh in general and particularly in Nizamabad and Adilabad Districts and with a view to prevent him from further acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodities essential to the community, issued the impugned order of detention invoking the provisions under Section 3(2)(a) read with Section 3(1 )(a) & (b) (1) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, directing that the detenu be lodged in Central Prison, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Petitioner further complains to this Court that the two grounds shown in the order of detention dated 7-6-1999 are stale and irrelevant and there is no subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority-first respondent for ordering the detention. Petitioner states that the stale and irrelevant grounds mentioned in the impugned detention order dated 7-6-1999 do not warrant the detention of the detenu and such an order is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the detenu under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. It is in this background, petitioner has pleaded before
this Court that the impugned detention order dated 7-6-1999 which is per se illegal to be quashed and the detenu be ordered to be released forthwith.
5. We have also heard Sri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, Counsel for the petitioner.
6. Learned Additional Advocate-General who appeared on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the activities of the detenu were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodities essential to the community and in order to prevent him from further acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodities essential to the community, the first respondent has issued the impugned detention order. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned detention order is proper.
7. It is now well settled that the order of detention passed by the detaining authorities is in the nature of denying fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Through the detention order, the period of detention of a detenu could even be extended upto one year without subjecting the detenu for trial before a Court of law. It is in this background, Courts have held in series of decisions that the detaining authorities have to show great care and have subjective satisfaction before passing an order of detention. Courts have further held that if taking recourse to ordinary panel laws against the acts of the person to be detained are insufficient to prevent such person from indulging in such acts which are detrimental to the society, then only the extraordinary powers vested in the detaining authority has to be invoked. Courts have also held that if the grounds of detention are stale, irrelevant and have no nexus with each other, the detention order cannot be sustainable.
8. In Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and
in Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. MM Mehta Commissioner of Police, 1995 SC (Crl.) 454, the Supreme Court has held that when the grounds of detention are found to be stale and there is no subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, such a detention order has to be set aside without looking to the other aspects of the matter.
9. Applying the above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, we now examine the two grounds indicated by the first respondent-detaining authority in the impugned detention order dated 7-6-1999.
10. The first ground referred to in the impugned detention order is based on an incident said to have taken place on 21-5-1995 on which date the detenu was found transporting 100 quintals of rice to the State of Maharashtra unauthorisedly. However, it is informed to this Court by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Vigilance Cell of Civil Supplies Department has registered a case against the detenu pertaining to the said incident. The detenu carried the matter in appeal before the appropriate appellate authority and the detenu was exonerated. The criminal case filed against the detenu has also ended up in his acquittal. This fact has also not been disputed by the learned Additional Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, when the allegation that the detenu had indulged in transporting illegally 100 quintals of rice on 21-5-1995 in lorry No.AAA 7844 is not proved, such a ground is not available to the first respondent-detaining authority for ordering the detention of the detenu on that ground.
11. Coming to the second ground in the impugned detention order, it is alleged that on 31-1-1999, 4-2-1999, 2-3-1999 and on 31-4-1999, the brother of the detenu was found by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell (CS) Department, Adilabad on a motorcycle surveying the route to have a
smooth passage of their paddy/rice lorries to Maharashtra State and on noticing the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies and their staff, the lorries carrying paddy/rice belonging to the detenu have retreated.
12. We are unable to understand as to how this incident could be one of the grounds for detention. In the absence of any tangible material to show that the detenu has actually indulged in carrying paddy/rice in his lorries unauthorisedly on the above mentioned dates, we are of the view that this ground is irrelevant for ordering detention. The requirement for a detaining authority to order detention is that he must have subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material placed before him. An examination of ground No.2 mentioned in the impugned order of detention makes it clear that the said ground is irrelevant and does not indicate a specific charge/allegation against the detenu warranting his detention. Even the first ground which is based on an incident which took place in the year 1995 is not available to the detaining authority as the detenu was exonerated from that charge by the competent authority, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents.
13. Having regard to our discussion, we are inclined to hold that the two grounds mentioned by the first respondent-detaining authority in the impugned detention order dated 7-6-1999 are based only on irrelevant incidents falling short of the requirement of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to take us to other implications, we do not think it necessary to ponder over those aspects as we have already held that the impugned detention order dated 7-6-1999 is based on stale and irrelevant incidents.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned detention order dated 7-6-1999 passed by the first respondent in proceedings No.CS.6/527/99 ordering the detention of Rajkumar Agarwal is quashed. The detenu-Rajkumar Agarwal shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The writ petition is accordingly. allowed.