BABULAL MULCHAND v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAISEN — 1975 DIGILAW 7 (MP)

JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS order will also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 1054 of 1974 Pokhardas v. The District Magistrate, Raisen and another. These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitions raise a common question and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. ( 2. ) THE petitioners have been detained by separate orders of detention of the District Magistrate, Raisen, dated 29-10-1974, made in exercise of the powers conferred on her under section 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", on her being satisfied that their detention was necessary with a view to preventing them from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community". ( 3. ) THERE is no suggestion that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. Nor is there any suggestion that the petitioners were deprived of their right of making representations under section 8 (1) of the Act. The district Magistrate forthwith reported the fact of the making of the detention orders to the State Government, and the detention of the petitioners was approved or by the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the act. The petitioners submitted their representations on 14 11-1974 to the state Government. The representations submitted by them under section 8 (1) of the Act were duly considered by the State Government and rejected. The state Government sent a communication to each of the petitioners to the effect that after full consideration it did not find any reason to cancel his detention order. The cases of the petitioners were placed before the Advisory Board under section 10 of the Act, along with the detention orders together with the grounds of their detention and all other particulars bearing on the same, as well as the representations of the petitioners. On 5-12-1974, the Advisory Board, after considering the materials placed before it and the representations of the petitioners, and after giving to them a personal hearing, made a report to the state Government to the effect that there was sufficient cause for their detention. The State Government accordingly in exercise of its powers under subsection (1) of section 12 of the Act, confirmed the orders of detention. ( 4. The State Government accordingly in exercise of its powers under subsection (1) of section 12 of the Act, confirmed the orders of detention. ( 4. ) THE facts and grounds of detention are more or less common except that there is some difference in particulars. The facts in the present case, are that the petitioner, Babulal, who belongs to Obedullaganj, district Raisen, where he holds a loodgrain dealers licence under the provisions of the Madhya pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1965, and carries on business in foodgrains in the name and style of M/s. Babulal Moolchand Agarwal, Obedullaganj. ( 5. ) ON 23-8-1974, the Food and Civil Supplies Inspector, Obedullaganj, carried out a raid of the shop of the petitioner, and the petitioner was found to hold in stock 171. 68 quintals of wheat, and 176. 99 quintals of gram, in excess of the stock as entered in the Stock Registar. The Stock Register maintained by him merely showed an entry of 47. 32 quintals of wheat, and 258. 72 quintals of gram which included the quantity of i 76. 99 quintals of gram purchased by him from one Bhuramal Udaichand and kept in his godown. On physical verification, the Food and Civil Supplies Inspector found that the petitioner had actually 219 quintals of wheat in stock as against 47. 32 quintals entered in the Stock Register, resulting in an excess stock of 171. 68 quintals of wheat. The petitioner did not protest at the time of the raid, that the excess stock of 171. 68 quintals of wheat did not belong to him. Similarly, the Food and Civil Supplies Inspector found that the petitioner had 389. 99 quintals of gram in his godowns including 176. 99 quintals purchased by him from one bhuramal Udaichand and stored in Bhuramal Udaichands godown. Thus, the total stock of gram held by the petitioner was 389. 99 quintals of gram, instead of 258. 72 quintals entered in the Stock Register, resulting in an excess stock of 131. 27 quintals. ( 6. ) THE petitioners have been issued a foodgrain dealers licence in form "b", under clause (4) (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers licensing Older, 1965. 99 quintals of gram, instead of 258. 72 quintals entered in the Stock Register, resulting in an excess stock of 131. 27 quintals. ( 6. ) THE petitioners have been issued a foodgrain dealers licence in form "b", under clause (4) (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers licensing Older, 1965. Under clause 3 (2) of the Order, any person who stores any foodgrains in quantity of 10 quintals or more of any one of the foodgrains or 25 quintals of all foodgrains taken together at one time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the foodgrains for the purposes of sale. Condition 2 (a) of the licence provides that the licensee shall carry on the business at the place specified. Clause (b) thereof enjoins that the foodgrains in which the aforesaid business is to be carried on, shall not be stored at any place other than the godowns mentioned. Under condition 3 (1), the licensee, except where excepted, shall maintain a register of daily account in Form B-I for each of the foodgrains, and clause (ii) thereof, directs that he shall complete his accounts for each day to which they relate, unless prevented by reasonable cause. ( 7. ) THE grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner Babulal on 1-11-1974 were: - " (i) On 23-8-1974, during a raid of your shop and godown by Shri R. D. Dubey, Food and Civil Supplies Inspector, Obedullaganj, 219 quintals of wheat were found stocked. Your register of daily accounts shows 47. 32 quintals of wheat as your stock on the same date. Thus you were found in excess of 171. 68 quintals of wheat. (ii) You are a foodgrain licensee under the M. P. Foodgrain Dealers Licensing Order 1965 but you have contravened the condition (3) (ii) of the licence by not maintaining complete accounts. (iii) Similarly on 23-8-1974 during the raid 389. 99 quintals of gram were found stocked. Your register of daily account shows 258. 72 quintals of gram as your stock on that date. On verification of your godowns 213 quintals of gram were found in your possession and 176. 99 quintals of gram were stocked in Bhuramal Udaichands godown from whom you had purchased on 21-8-74 and had kept there. The entry to this effect has also been made in the daily register of accounts. Thus you were found in excess of 131. On verification of your godowns 213 quintals of gram were found in your possession and 176. 99 quintals of gram were stocked in Bhuramal Udaichands godown from whom you had purchased on 21-8-74 and had kept there. The entry to this effect has also been made in the daily register of accounts. Thus you were found in excess of 131. 27 quintals of gram. (iv) Thus contravention of condition 3 (ii) of the Foodgrain licence has been commited by you by not maintaining complete accounts. (v) You could not explain how this excess stock of wheat and gram was built by you. (vi) This act of yours amounts to hoarding of stocks with a view to profiteering, black-marketing and depriving the Government of the fifty per cent of wheat levy under the M. P. Wheat Procurement (Levy) Order, 1974 and has, therefore, been considered prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community at a time when it is most necessary to maintain stability in the supplies essential to the community. For this reason, your remaining at large was considered unsafe and fraught with grave danger to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community. " The particulars having a bearing on the same, are contained in schedule annexed which reads schedule 1 Register of daily accounts of Shri Babulal Moolchand, Obedullaganj. 2 Mandi Register. 3 Report of Food and Civil Supplies Inspector dated 28-8-74 along with Japtinama, Panchanama and Supartnarna and statements of three witnesses. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner put forward a four-fold contention. His first submission is that a single solitary act, could hardly furnish a sufficient cause or sustain the inference that the petitioners were acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community and with a view to preventing them from so acting, it was necessary to detain them and the satisfaction of the District Magistrate in this behalf was, therefore, no satisfaction at all, and could not support the making of the orders of detention. The respondents disputed the validity of this contention. ( 9. ) THE orders of detention are essentially of a precautionary measure, and they are based on a reasonably anticipated prognosis of future behaviour of a person based on the basis of his immediate or past conduct, judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances. The respondents disputed the validity of this contention. ( 9. ) THE orders of detention are essentially of a precautionary measure, and they are based on a reasonably anticipated prognosis of future behaviour of a person based on the basis of his immediate or past conduct, judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Such conduct may consist of one single act or a series of acts. But whatever it be, it may be of such a nature that an inference can reasonably be drawn from it that the person concerned would be likely to repeat such acts so as to warrant his detention. In Debu mahto v. The State of West Bengal, s1 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observe:- "we must, of course, make it clear that it is not our view that in no case a single solitary act attributed to a person form the basis for reaching a satisfaction that he might repeat such acts in future and in order to prevent him from doing so, it is necessary to detain him. The nature of the act and the attendant circumstances may in a given case be such as to reasonably justify an inference that the person concerned, if not detained, would be likely to indulge in commission of such acts in future. The order of detention is essentially a precautionary measure and it is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Such past conduct may consist of one single act or of a series of acts. But whatever it be, it must be of such a nature that an inference can reasonably be drawn from it that the person concerned would be likely to repeat such acts so as to warrant his detention. " ( 10. ) IT, therefore, depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case whether such inference should or should not be drawn. In Debu mahtos case their Lordships, proceed to state that, it may be easier to draw such an inference where there is a series of acts evincing a course of conduct. That, however, is not a rule of universal application. Even if there is a single act, such an inference may be justifiably drawn in a given case. That precisely is the case here. That, however, is not a rule of universal application. Even if there is a single act, such an inference may be justifiably drawn in a given case. That precisely is the case here. The petitioners were found to hold in stock huge quantities of foodgrains, far in excess of the stock entered in his Stock Register. The excess quantity of foodgrains were hoarded in godowns, and were obviously meant for sale. The natural inference is that such hoarding of foodgrains was for the purpose of profiteering or blackmarketting or for depriving the government of its 50% levy of wheat. ( 11. ) THE next point taken by the counsel that even accepting the factual aspect enumerated in para 2 of the detention order, it is not possible in these cases, to infer that the act of hoarding was for the purpose of profiteering, black marketting or for depriving the Government of its 50% levy of wheat, cannot also be accepted. There can be no doubt that the holding of such stocks must necessarily give rise to an inference that such hoarding of stocks was with a view to profiteering, black-marketting and depriving the Government of the 50% of wheat levy under the Wheat Procurement (Levy) Order, 1974, which could not but be considered as prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community, at a time when it was most necessary to maintain stability in the supplies. ( 12. ) WE cannot but take judicial notice of the fact that hoarding of food grain is a serious anti-social offence. The economic instability arising out of growing inflation, soaring prices and shortage of essential commodities in the country has virtually brought about near famine condition, by the creation of artificial scarcity of essential supplies by hoarders. Such acts of hoarding, as in these cases, had to be met with a firm hand. We are not concerned here with adequacy or sufficiency of a ground of detention. There was clearly a nexus between the grounds of detention and the maintenance of supplies essential to the community. The second point must, therefore, also fail. ( 13. ) THIRDLY, the submission is that two of the grounds served on the petitioner Babulal were factually incorrect, and at any rate, one of them was non-existing or false and, therefore, the order of detention was bad. There is no merit in the contention. The second point must, therefore, also fail. ( 13. ) THIRDLY, the submission is that two of the grounds served on the petitioner Babulal were factually incorrect, and at any rate, one of them was non-existing or false and, therefore, the order of detention was bad. There is no merit in the contention. It is urged that 171. 68 quintals of wheat i. e. the wheat found in excess, had neither been purchased nor belonged to the petitioner, but it belonged to one Shridhar Shastri. It is said that his brother, s. D. Gupta, who is principal of a college at Kota, had cultivation in village vashan Kheda, tahsil Goharganj, and that he had kept 172 bags of wheat with the petitioner with a view to avoid its loss from floods. It is also said that in the year 1973, because of floods the house belonging to S. D. Gupta, situated in his fields, and used for storing the grain, got inundated and the wheat stored therein had been completely lost and to avoid this, he through his brother the said Shridhar Shastri had kept 172 bags of wheat with the petitioner. The respondents controverted this allegation, saying that it was an "afterthought". Similarly, the petitioner contends that the particulars furnished in para 2 (iii) of the detention order in respect of gram, were factually incorrect. ( 14. ) IN support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of their Lordships in Prabhu Dayal Deoraha v. District Magistrate, Kamrup and others, AIR 1974 SC, 183. which lays down the well settled principle that, if one or more of the grounds of detention are irrelevant or bad, then the detention order is vitiated as a whole. There can be no dispute with the proposition. That is because the Act leaves it to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to detain persons, and it can never be said with certainty as to what extent the bad reasons operated in the mind of the detaining authority, or whether the detention order would have been made at all, if good reasons had been before it. That principle is, however, not attracted in these cases. The decision in prabhu Dayal Deoraha v. District Magistrate, Kamrup and others (supra), is distinguishable on facts. That principle is, however, not attracted in these cases. The decision in prabhu Dayal Deoraha v. District Magistrate, Kamrup and others (supra), is distinguishable on facts. There, from the mere fact of seizure of rice, no inference was possible that the detenues were responsible for unauthorised milling of paddy and smuggling of the resultant rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profits, there being no particulars furnished in regard thereto. That was, therefore, a case where the detaining authority did not apply its mind at all to one of the grounds of detention. The decision in Bhut Nath v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 806 . on which strong reliance is placed, is also distinguishable. In that case, the detaining authority acted on extraneous material which was not communicated to the detenu. ( 15. ) THE sheet-anchor in the petitioner Babulals case is the alleged intimation dated 22-7-1974, Annexure-P-1, given by the aforesaid Shridhar shastri to the Tahsildar, Goharganj. The respondents, as already stated, have characterised this to be an afterthought. The report of the Food and civil Supplies Inspector dated 23-8-1974, Annexure R-1, clearly shows that the Tahsildar was present at the time of the raid. If the alleged intimation had, in fact, been given to the Tahsildar, it stands to reason that he would have informed the Food and Civil Supplies Inspector that 171. 68 quintals of wheat did not belong to the petitioner, but had been stored in his godown by shridhar Shastri, as per the alleged intimation. The fact that he did not mention this, throws considerable suspicion about the genuineness of the document. We have reasons to suspect that the document was subsequently brought into existence. ( 16. ) THAT apart, the petitioner did not endorse on the copy of the Stock register of daily accounts, Annexure-R-II, any entry with respect to 171. 68 quintals of wheat, stating that the same belonged to S. D. Gupta and had merely been stored in his godown taken by him on hire, as he had done in respect of gram. The document in question did not see the light of the day, till the petitioner filed his representation under section 8 (1) of the Act. These circumstances speak for themselves. The State Government and the advisory Board had before them the alleged intimation, but they were evidently not prepared to act on it. The document in question did not see the light of the day, till the petitioner filed his representation under section 8 (1) of the Act. These circumstances speak for themselves. The State Government and the advisory Board had before them the alleged intimation, but they were evidently not prepared to act on it. The matter must, in our opinion, rest at that. ( 17. ) IT is not open to this Court to enquire into the truth or otherwise of the facts stated in the grounds in these proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution. In Masood Alain v. Union of India and others, AIR 1973 SC 897 . , their Lordships stated: "the facts stated in the grounds have to be accepted as correct and it is not open to this Court to enquire into the truth like a Court of appeal. Writ proceedings cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. . . . . . . . . . . It is not open to this Court to review and override the subjective opinion of the District Magistrate by going into the truth or otherwise of the facts accepted by him. " The same principles were reiterated by their Lordships in Jagdish Prasad v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 911 . thus: "it is not for the Court to investigate the veracity of these averments. . . . . . . . . . . . may be the petitioner has a good defence but the imprisonment is preventive and not punitive, the conclusion is based on the Executives subjective satisfaction, not the Courts objective assessment. . . . . . . . . . . " [see also Qulam Hussain v. The Police Commissioner, Calcutta, AIR 1974 SC 1336 . Anil Dey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 832 . and Kishan Chand v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another, M. P. No. 970 of 1974, decided on 3-1-1975. ]. ( 18. ) THE document in question was before the Government and then before the Advisory Board. The Government rejected the representation after considering all the materials before it, so also the Advisory Board, notwithstanding the petitioners aforesaid allegations in that representation and the alleged intimation, came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause justifying his detention. ]. ( 18. ) THE document in question was before the Government and then before the Advisory Board. The Government rejected the representation after considering all the materials before it, so also the Advisory Board, notwithstanding the petitioners aforesaid allegations in that representation and the alleged intimation, came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause justifying his detention. In Sasthi Chandra Roy v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2134 . their Lordships repelled a similar contention, stating : - "assuming that the certificate was ganuinely given by the Head Master and not out of fear of evil consequences if it were refused by him, that certificate together with the petitioners said representation was first before the Government and then before the Advisory board. Yet, the Government rejected the representation after considering all the materials before it and the Board also, notwithstanding the petitioners aforesaid allegations in that representation and the said certificate, came to the conclusion that there was sufficient cause justifying his detention. That being the position, neither the fact of the petitioner having been granted conditional bail nor the fact of his having procured the said certificate could by themselves further his contention that the impugned order was passed on baseless or false allegations. " [see also, Masood Alain v. Union of India, supra]. In view of the settled principles, the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate is not subject to review by this Court embarking on an enquiry into facts, by applying an objective standard. ( 19. ) THE fourth and the last submission is that, on the facts appearing, it was not necessary for the District Magistrate to pass the detention orders, but that the prejudicial activities, if any of the petitioners could be prevented by a cancellation of their foodgrain dealers licence. It is said that in similar circumstances, the only action taken against other dealers is of cancellation of such licence. An application was moved during the hearing seeking to bring the fact on record. We are afraid the application is misconceived and cannot be entertained. We do not know whether the District Magistrate has under contemplation preventive detention of the other dealers or not. That fact is, therefore, wholly irrelevant in judging the validity of the detention order, which cannot be treated to be mala fide on that account. We are afraid the application is misconceived and cannot be entertained. We do not know whether the District Magistrate has under contemplation preventive detention of the other dealers or not. That fact is, therefore, wholly irrelevant in judging the validity of the detention order, which cannot be treated to be mala fide on that account. In cases of detention, each case has to be judged on its facts and not by reference to the facts of the other cases. ( 20. ) THE contention that the activities of the petitioner could be prevented merely by cancellation of his licence or that the order of detention is vitiated by delay of two months is neither here nor there. The fields of preventive or penal jurisdiction are neither co-extensive nor alternative. Hence action, if taken under one jurisdiction does not divest the authorities of powers to take action under the other. As to the alleged delay, the delay was not such that the District Magistrate could not have on the material before her, arrived at the satisfaction leading to the making of the orders of detention. The District Magistrate has filed an affidavit in these cases, stating that she was satisfied on the basis of recovery of the substantial stocks of wheat and gram in one case and wheat in the other, from the godowns of the petitioners, that they were acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community and she had, therefore, passed the impugned orders detaining the petitioners. In Malwa Shaw v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 957 . their Lordships, in a case where there was a delay of 5 months, rejected a similar contention, stating :- "the time lag between the dates of the alleged incidents and the making of the order of detention is not so large that it can be said that no reasonable person could possibly arrive at the satisfaction which the District Magistrate did on the basis or the alleged incidents. It must be remembered that some time is bound to elapse before the investigation into the alleged incidents is completed and the matter is brought to the notice of the district Magistrate and the District Magistrate applies his mind and arrives at the requisite satisfaction culminating in the order of detention. It must be remembered that some time is bound to elapse before the investigation into the alleged incidents is completed and the matter is brought to the notice of the district Magistrate and the District Magistrate applies his mind and arrives at the requisite satisfaction culminating in the order of detention. " The crucial test, in their Lordships words, is:- "the satisfaction which the District Magistrate is required to reach in order to support the order of detention is that it is necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a particular manner and that satisfaction can obviously be founded only on a reasonable anticipated prognosis of future behaviour of the petitioner made on the basis of past incidents. It is not possible to say that the incidents referred to in the grounds of detention were such that they could not reasonably lead to the satisfaction which the District Magistrate reached when he made the order of detention. " That test is clearly fulfilled in the instant cases. ( 21. ) IN the result, the petition must, therefore, fail and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.