N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitioner are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus or a writ or order of the like nature complaining that the petitioner in each of these two petitions was unlawfully detained by the State of Gujarat pursuant to the identically worded orders both dated 29/06/1981 Annexure A to each of these two petitions the detention having been ordered in the purported exercise or the powers conferred on the Government by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Main- tenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (No. 7 of 1980) (the Act for short ). The petitioners in both these petitions allege that their detention is otherwise than in accordance with law and they therefore pray that they should be set at liberty forthwith. Since these two petitions are almost identical they can be conveniently dealt with together and disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioners of these two petitions are partners of one firm styled as Ravi Emporium running a business of selling cloth in the city of Rajkot. It was alleged against them as could be gathered from the identical grounds of detention furnished to each of them. (Annexure C in both the petitions) that at the premises of this firm Ravi Emporium controlled cloth valued about Rs. 7 0 found in a raid made at their business premises on 11/04/1981. The said raid was alleged to have been made because there was information with the authorities that the said controlled cloth intended to be distributed to the low income group of the society at fixed price and in limited quota on the basis of the ration cards was being sold in blackmarket. These two partners had no authorisation for the purpose of dealing in this controlled cloth. In their statements given to the authorities and in the document styled as their acknowledgment they had admitted that they had no such authorisation that they had purchased this cloth from a place named Narol near the city of Ahmedabad from some undisclosed merchants through the auspices of some undisclosed broker. In their statements given to the authorities and in the document styled as their acknowledgment they had admitted that they had no such authorisation that they had purchased this cloth from a place named Narol near the city of Ahmedabad from some undisclosed merchants through the auspices of some undisclosed broker. The grounds further stated that this cloth was meant for the Rajkot District Co- operative Federation and the receipts for the cloth meant for this federation also were discovered from the premises of Ravi Emporium. It was also alleged that this cloth was being sold to various parties without any bills and that a separate account was being maintained in that regard and the goods were purchased by these persons under the fictitious name of Dinesh Traders. The graunds ultimately stated in paragraph 12 of the grounds as follows:"it is proved from the aforesaid facts and particularly the facts set out in paragraphs 3 4 5 6 8 and 11 that you are actively associated with the aforesaid scandal regarding controlled cloth. You have indulged in antisocial and censurable activity by keeping away the low income group people from getting the controlled cloth by diverting the said cloth illegally though it was meant to be distributed among such people. Not only that but you hate also indulged into the activities that would frustrate the distribution of the controlled cloth and encourage blackmarketing You also are found to have the tendency to continue such nefarious activities. [the above grounds are translated by us. ] ( 3 ) UNDER sec. 3 (1) of the Act the State Government may if satis- fied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of com- modities essential to the community it is necessary so to do make an order directing that such person be detained. The operative words of the enabling sec. 3 (1) of the Act have the important phrase acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and therefore to this sec. 3 (1) of the Act is appended `explanation which is reproduced below. The operative words of the enabling sec. 3 (1) of the Act have the important phrase acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and therefore to this sec. 3 (1) of the Act is appended `explanation which is reproduced below. (A) committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 or under any other law for the time being in force relating to the control of the production supply or distribution of or trade and commerce in any commodity essential to the community; or (B) dealing in any commodity- (I) which is an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act 1955 or (II) with respect to which provisions have been made in any such other law as is referred to in clause (a) with a view to making gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of that Act or other law aforesaid. "the said phrase as is evident from a bare reading of the above Expla- nation deals with two kinds of situations. A person who commits or abets by instigation any other person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 or under any other law for the time being in force relating to the control etc. of any commodity essential to the community may be said to be so acting. So in order to attract clause (a) of the Explanation it must be found before the provisions of sec. 3 (1) of the Act could be called to aid that the said person has committed or has instigated any other person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 No other similar act was called to aid and therefore we say that in order to attract clause (a) of the Explanation the authority must have before it material to show that the person sought to be detained had either committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 or had abeted any other person in the commission of any such offence. It is a truism to state that nothing is offence unless a specific law defines that act to be so. We therefore pointedly asked the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. It is a truism to state that nothing is offence unless a specific law defines that act to be so. We therefore pointedly asked the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. A. J. Patel to show as to what offence each of these petitioners in his capacity as the partner of Ravi Emporium can be said to have committed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 He invited in this connection our attention to the Cotton Textile (Control) Order 1948 which is issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under sec. 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946 and which is still in operation. The Textile Commission is clothed with certain powers under clause (30) of the said Cotton Textile (Control) Order 1948 (The Textile Control Order. for short ). Under sub-clause (1) of clause (30) the Textile Commissioner can direct any manufacturer of controlled cloth or dealer of controlled cloth to sell or deliver specified quantities of cloth or yarn to specified persons or not to sell or deliver cloth or yarn of specified quantities except to specified persons and subject to such other persons as the Textile Commissioner may specify. In sub- clause (2) of clause (30) the Textile Commissioner is further given power to issue directions to any manufacturer or dealer or controlled cloth to sell or deliver specified quantities of cloth or yarn to specified persons. In exercise of the powers vested in him the Textile Com- missioner issued two orders on 9/10/1972. The first notification dated 9/10/1972 fixes the maximum retail price of the aforesaid varieties of cloth at 122 percent over the ex-factory price. The second notification which is relevant for our purposes is reproduced below:-"in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (2) of clause (30) of the Cotton Textile (Control) Order 1948 I hereby direct that every manufacturer of controlled cloth shall sell or deliver all stocks of controlled cloth as on 8/10/1972 and the stocks of such cloth which may accrue after the said date to only the four channels of distribution mentioned below namely :1 Mills own retail shops2 Super Bazars3 Fair price shops affiliated to the National Cooperative Consumers Federation and4 Fair Price shops opened by the State Governments. EXPLANATION : For the purpose of this order controlled cloth means and includes controlled dhoti controlled shirting controlled long cloth controlled saree drill as defined in Textile Commissioners Notification No. CEA/1/68 dated the 2/05/1968" ( 4 ) ABOVE are the two statutory orders issued by the Textile Commi- ssioner. The above-quoted second order dated 9/10/1972 gives only one direction and that too to the Textile Mills enjoining upon them to sell or deliver all stocks of controlled cloth with them only to one or other of the four agencies mentioned above. What those four agencies should do how they should further deal with the goods sold or delivered to them is not the subject matter of any statutory order issued by the Textile Commissioner. The subsequent steps that were taken were unfor- tunately purely on administrative side and not on the basis of any legis- lation or delegated legislation. ( 5 ) AFTER the above-mentioned directive was issued by the Textile Commissioner under clause (30) of the Textile Control Order on 30-10- 1972 a meeting was convened of the Textile Commissioner and represe- ntatives of the National Co-operative Consumers Federation and the representatives of different states from Civil Supplies Department at Bombay. At this meeting a conjoint administrative decision was taken and clause (11) thereof provided that out of the four agencies referred to in the statutory order quoted above the sale of controlled cloth was to be effected through the shops approved by the State Government and not through the private merchants. By no stretch of imagination can we call this a decision or directive by the Textile Commissioner much less a directive issued by him pursuant to the powers vested in him under clause (30) of the Textile Control Order or any other clause of the Textile Control Order. The merchants shall not be associated with the distribu- tion of this controlled cloth is not a directive of the Textile Commissi- oner in his capacity of the authority contemplated by the aforesaid Textile Control Order. It was to all intents and purposes an administra- tive decision or four possible representative interests so called. There is no order further prohibiting a private dealer from dealing with this cloth. It was to all intents and purposes an administra- tive decision or four possible representative interests so called. There is no order further prohibiting a private dealer from dealing with this cloth. There is nothing in this so called direction loosely embodied in the Governments letter dated 15/11/1972 which would make such an unauthorised shop dealer a person who can be conceived as a person contravening any provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 or any order issued thereunder. We therefore hold that this was only what the members of that informal meeting of 30-10-1972 hoped for or expected. If it be so it is difficult for us to say that there was even an iota of material with the Detaining Authority that these petitioners were acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of com- modities essential to the community in the sense of their committing or instigating any other person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 which would include any statutory order issued under the said Act either under sec. 3 or sec. 5 thereof. ( 6 ) ALTERNATIVELY Mr. Patel the learned Public Prosecutor tried to bring the case under clause (b) of the Explanation appended to sec. 3 (1) of the Act. In order to be called a person acting in any manner preju- dicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community in terms of clause (b) of the Explanation appended sec. 3 (1) of the Act it must be found that (1) the person is dealing in any com- modity which is an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (2) such dealing is effected by the dealer with a view of making in any manner which directly or indirectly defeated or tended to defeat the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 The third aspect of this requirement again would attract the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or an order issued thereunder. The Detaining Authority must have before its mind some provisions of the Act or the orders issued thereunder which could be said to have been directly or indirectly defeated or sought to be defeated by the dealer. The Detaining Authority must have before its mind some provisions of the Act or the orders issued thereunder which could be said to have been directly or indirectly defeated or sought to be defeated by the dealer. In the case on hand all that has been alleged against these petitioners is that they were found in possession of the controlled cloth which was with them in suspicious circumstances. It cannot be gainsaid that the said goods were found with them in somewhat fishy circumstances in the sense that they had no regular account books with them in that regard that they had main- tained separate account books that their bills showed some fictitious names that the purchase bills which were meant for the Rajkot District Co-operative Federation were inexplicably in their custody etc. It was further in the mind of the Detaining Authority that the atmosphere was rife with rumors that controlled cloth was being sold in blackmarket. The Detaining Authority should have addressed itself specifically to some prow visions of the Act which ultimately provide for the non-passing of such goods into the hands of private dealers. All that the statutory order of 9/10/1972 provided was that the manufacturer should deliver the goods only to the one or to the other four categories of purchasers and the matter rested there as far as law goes. A situation can well be conceived as a possible one though not necessarily a probable one where a cooperative store having authorisation from the Government in the form of a contract with the Government to deal in this controlled cloth may not be in a position to dispose of the said cloth either for want of proper machinery or for want of proper market with them. There is no provision of law which would prevent them from seeking the help of a private agency in order to get rid of the stock with them. There is not even a whimper of suggestion in the grounds that these petitioners were selling or at any time in the past sold this controlled cloth at a price worked out at more than 12 1/2 per cent over the exfactory price. The use of the term blackmarket is not suggestive of any such thing qua these petitioners. There is not even a whimper of suggestion in the grounds that these petitioners were selling or at any time in the past sold this controlled cloth at a price worked out at more than 12 1/2 per cent over the exfactory price. The use of the term blackmarket is not suggestive of any such thing qua these petitioners. It is pertinent to note that some part of the cloth found with these petitioners was damaged by white-ants or was defective in manu- facture. In these circumstances the Detaining Authority had not applied its mind to the requirements of clause (b) of the Explanation appended sec. 3 (1) of the Act in so far as the Detaining Authority had not before its mind any specific provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 which were sought to be directly or indirectly defeated by the manner of dealing with controlled cloth by these petitioners. We are not obli- vious of the fact that in the grounds of detention the Detaining Autho- rity may not refer to specific provisions of law by numbers but from the grounds it must be crystal clear that all the requirements of law which went to clothe the Detaining Authority with power to detain-cer- tainly an unusual and abnormal power were present to the mind of the Detaining Authority when he took on his hands a case for detaining a citizen who was otherwise entitled to freedom of movement. To us it appears crystal clear that these are glaring cases of non-application of mind. The Detaining Authority had not in its mind any provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 or any other law referred to in sub- sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the Act which were sought to be defeated or which were intended to be defeated either directly or indirectly by the manner in which the petitioners had sought to make gain by dealing in this controlled cloth. All that the elaborate grounds in Annexure C to each of these petitions show is that these petitioners having no authorisation or contract with the Government to deal in controlled cloth had started dealing in controlled cloth it was rumoured that controlled cloth was being sold in black-market. All that the elaborate grounds in Annexure C to each of these petitions show is that these petitioners having no authorisation or contract with the Government to deal in controlled cloth had started dealing in controlled cloth it was rumoured that controlled cloth was being sold in black-market. ( 7 ) TIME and again it has been emphasised that the right to liberty is a very valuable right and it can be interfered with only in strict com- pliance with law and only in the manner laid down by the statute. To us it appears clear that the Detaining Authority had not before its mind any provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 which were intended to be defeated directly or indirectly by the dealings of these petitioners. We have already referred to the joint decision arrived at a meeting referred to in the letter dated 15-11-1972. As a matter of fact this letter is a letter written by the Secretary of the Government to various Collectors and it inter alia mentions that at the meeting of the Textile Commissioner and other representatives some decisions were taken regarding the method of distribution of controlled cloth in the initial stages. If while devising ways and means to channel the controlled cloth a casual or incidental observation or note was made that cooperative societies alone as contracting parties will be selected for the purpose of distributing and selling the controlled cloth and private merchants would be kept out it is difficult to refer to such a second-hand reference to the deliberations of the meeting as a direction issued by the competent authority in exercise of its statutory powers. Take either clause (a) or clause (b) of the Explanation appended to sec. 3 (1) of the Act in either case provisions of law prominently figure. Unless they had prominently figured in the consideration of the Detaining Authority the detention order can not be sustained. ( 8 ) IN above view of the matter we find that the detention of these two petitioners is not in accordance with law and therefore the detention orders Annexure A in both these petitions are required to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. Both the petitions are accordingly allowed by making rule absolute with no order as to costs. Both the petitions are accordingly allowed by making rule absolute with no order as to costs. It is directed that the petitioners shall be set at liberty forthwith so far as these two cases are concerned. Petition allowed. .