9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge of illegal detention under Article 226 of the Constitution based on violation of clauses in Essential Commodities Order, 1981. Grounds of detention, representation to State and Central Government, alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged their detention under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing violation of the Essential Commodities Order, 1981. The detention was based on alleged involvement in black marketing of kerosene, contrary to the fixed price. The petitioner worked as a salesman for a shop owner who held the license to sell kerosene. The detention order implicated collusion between the petitioner and the shop owner in selling kerosene in the black market. 2. The petitioner raised two main grounds in their challenge. First, they argued that the detention was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as the shop owner's detention was set aside based on similar facts and offenses. Second, the petitioner claimed that their representation to the Central Government was not considered, rendering the detention illegal. 3. The Court found no merit in the delay claim regarding the Central Government's consideration of the petitioner's representation. The State Government promptly rejected the representation, and the Central Government followed suit after due process. The Court emphasized that the identical grounds in the representations to the State and Central Governments did not affect the legality of the detention. 4. Regarding the first ground, the Court noted that the petitioner's role as a salesman under the shop owner was crucial. Despite attempts to distinguish the cases based on the shop owner's absence during a raid, the Court found no evidence that the shop owner had instructed the petitioner against black marketing. As the shop owner's detention was set aside, the Court deemed the detention of the petitioner a violation of Article 14. 5. Citing precedents from other High Courts, the Court highlighted the arbitrary nature of detaining one individual while releasing others involved in the same offense. The Court emphasized the importance of consistency in preventive detention cases to uphold constitutional principles. 6. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the detention order due to the clear violation of Article 14. The petitioner was ordered to be released, unless required in another criminal case, based on the unequal treatment compared to the shop owner whose detention was set aside.
|
