G. P. SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition for issuance of a writ of have as corpus for release of Mohanlal Gupta who has been detained by the order of the District Magistrate, Durg, dated 29th October 1982, under section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. ( 2 ) THE grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu on 2nd November, 1982. The detention order has been passed with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community i. e. preventing him from committing or instigating others to commit any offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and preventing him from dealing in essential commodities with a view to making unlawful gains. A perusal of the grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu will show that they are all connected with the distribution of food grains by a co-operative society bearing the name Prathmik Sahakari Upbhokta Bhandar Maryadit, Supela, of which the petitioner was the President. This cooperative society was allotted eleven shops under the M. P. (Khadya Padarth) Sarvjanik Nagrik Purti Vitran Scheme, 1981. The grounds contain allegations of mal-practices adopted by the society in distribution of food grains to the ration-card holders. It is also stated that the contraventions were done with the knowledge and consent of the detenu and on his directions and that the detenu in his capacity as President of the society did not exercise due diligence to prevent the said contraventions. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that there was a complaint against the co-operative society by the District Congress Committee as a result of which Deputy Collector Shri Gupta made certain enquiries. He gave an interim report on 10th September 1982. On the basis of that report the Food Officer on 13th September 1982 passed an order by which the society was prevented from carrying on the work of distribution of food grains. All the ration-card holders who were receiving supplies from the eleven shops allotted to the society were assigned to some other shops. On the basis of that report the Food Officer on 13th September 1982 passed an order by which the society was prevented from carrying on the work of distribution of food grains. All the ration-card holders who were receiving supplies from the eleven shops allotted to the society were assigned to some other shops. It is also not in dispute that at the time when the order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, proceedings for cancellation of the allotment of fair price shops to the society were pending before the sub- Divisional Officer under Clause 13 of the Scheme. ( 4 ) WE have already stated that the activities of the detenu on which the detention order is based are all connected with the distribution of food grains through the fair price shops which were allotted to the co-operative society of which the detenu was the president. The detention of a person is necessary only to prevent him from acting in future in and manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. A person cannot be detained for his past activities although past activities can be taken into account for judging the potentiality of the detenuts acts in future. In the instant case, as well as the activities to which reference was made in the grounds of detention were connected with the affairs of the society in relation to the distribution of food grains, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the question of prevention of these activities by detaining the detenu was not at all there when Proceedings had already been taken for suspension and cancellation of the allotment of shops to the society. In our opinion, there is great force in this contention. After the order of the Food Officer passed on 13th September 1982, which virtually amounted to suspension of allotment, the society had become completely inactive. No activity of distribution of food grains could be carried on thereafter by the society or the detenu. We have already mentioned that the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment were pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer. If the allegations of malpractices committed are correct, it can reasonably be assumed that the allotment would be cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer in near future matching the restraint against the society and the detenu brought about the Food Officers order absolute. We have already mentioned that the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment were pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer. If the allegations of malpractices committed are correct, it can reasonably be assumed that the allotment would be cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer in near future matching the restraint against the society and the detenu brought about the Food Officers order absolute. The action taken by the Food Officer and the expected action by the Sub-Divisional Officer were sufficient to prevent the detenu to indulge in future in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and the-detention of the detenu was not necessary to achieve that purpose. This aspect of the matter was entirely over looked by the District, Magistrate which lends a serious infirmity in the order of detention. In case the Sub-Divisional Officer comes to the conclusion that the charges of malpractices against the society are false, the allotment would certainly not be cancelled but that would also show that the detention of the petitioner was wholly unjustified. What we want to stress here is that having regard to all the circumstances it was not at all necessary to take any action of preventive detention against the detenu. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Advocate submitted before us that there was material before the District Magistrate that the petitioner himself in the name of another person took a licence and indulged into black marketing. That material has not been referred to by the District Magistrate in the grounds supplied to the detenu. From this it appears that the District Magistrate did not rely upon that material and it is not open to the Government Advocate to place that material before us for supporting the order of the District Magistrate. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that action against the detenu was taken on political considerations because of factional disputes in Congress (1 ). We do not think it necessary to go into this question as the detention order has been held to be invalid on other grounds. All that we need say is that the executive officers have to be cautious arid circumspect before taking any action against a person on the complaint of a political party even if that be the party in power. ( 7 ) THE petition is allowed. All that we need say is that the executive officers have to be cautious arid circumspect before taking any action against a person on the complaint of a political party even if that be the party in power. ( 7 ) THE petition is allowed. We order that Mohanlal Gupta, son of Gopal Das Gupta, be released forthwith. Petition allowed. .