Judgment: H. N. Seth, J. 1. BY this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Munna Lal Agarwal questions the validity of his detention under the provisions of SecJion 3 of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), authorised by the District Magistrate, Aligarh, vide his order dated 29th of October, 1983. 2. PETITIONER Munna Lal Agarwal is a licensee for carrying on the business of retail sale and purchase of coal (coal depot holder). On 29th of October, 1983 Sri D.C.G. Bhargava, Additional District Magistrate (Supplies) Aligarh, submitted a report to the District Magistrate Aligarh recommending that the petitioner should be detained under the provisions of the Act. The said report mentioned that on 26th of October, 1983 the Supply Inspector had lodged a first information report at Police Station. Lodh, District Aligarh to the effect that he, along with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, had checked truck No. UPB 3862 which was loaded with hard coke, near village Lodh in the presence of Wazir Chand and Yogendrapal Singh. According to the statement made by driver of the truck, Munnalal Agarwal, proprietor of "Munnalal Coal Depot" who was also present with him, was the owner of the hard coke and was carrying it to "Om Coal Depot", Kher. Neither the driver nor Munnalal Agarwal could produce the bill or invoice in respect of the coal that was being transported by them. Statement made by Surendra Singh also was to the effect that the said truck had been hired by Munnalal Agarwal for carrying coal to Kher. Thus Munnalal Agarwal was caught carrying 12 metric tons and 310 kilograms coal to Kher without making any entry in his records and with a view to effect its fictitious sale. He had thus contravened the conditions of the licence issued to him under the Coal Control Order, 1977 and committed an offence punishable under section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act. The report further mentioned that Subhash Chandra and Ghamandi Lal Gupta had in their written statements made on behalf of "Om Coal Depot" on 27th October, 1983 informed the supply Inspector that they did not enter into any transaction for purchase of coal with any party and that the alleged coal did not belong to them. The report further mentioned that Subhash Chandra and Ghamandi Lal Gupta had in their written statements made on behalf of "Om Coal Depot" on 27th October, 1983 informed the supply Inspector that they did not enter into any transaction for purchase of coal with any party and that the alleged coal did not belong to them. According to the Coal Control Order, 1977, no coal depot holder could effect retail sale of coal to any person in excess of 10 quintals and that as per condition No. 3' of the licence in Form 'C' it was not open to the distribute coal at any place other than that indicated in the licence. It, therefore, appeared that Munnalal Agarwal was carrying the said coal to Kher with view to sell it in black-market and he was indulging in activity which was prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. After perusing the report and papers submitted by the Additional District Magistrate, the District Magistrate recorded his satisfaction on the file thus : "Perused all the papers that are available on the record as also the report. From these documents I am satisfied that Sri Munnalal Agarwal son of Sri Ram Chandra Agarwal, resident of House No. 105, G. T. Road near Chharra Adda, Railway Gate, Aligarh, is running his business in such a manner which seriously affects distribution of coal. In this connection a first information report has also been lodged against him. He was, without supporting documents, carrying one truck of coal to Kher for selling the same in black-market. This is a very serious matter. Let orders for detaining him, under the provisions of Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 be issued." 3. He was, without supporting documents, carrying one truck of coal to Kher for selling the same in black-market. This is a very serious matter. Let orders for detaining him, under the provisions of Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 be issued." 3. AFTER recording aforementioned satisfaction in the file, the District Magistrate proceeded to prepare the formal order directing petitioner's detention thus :- "Inasmuch as in my capacity as District Magiistrate, I am, in relation to the person known as Sri Munna Lal Agarwal sou of Sri Ram Chandra Agarwal, resident of House No. 105, G. T. Road, near Chharra Adda, Railway Gate, Aligarh satisfied that it is necessary to detain him with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the distribution of commodities essential to the community ; Accordingly, I in exercise of my powers under Section 3 (2) (a) of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 direct that said Munna Lal Agarwal who is at present confined in District Jail Aligarh be, under Section 3 (1) of the aforesaid Act, detained by the Superintendent of Jail at the same place as an ordinary class detenu.' and served it upon the petitioner on the same day, that is, 29th October, 1983. 4. ALONGWITH the order of his detention, the petitioner was also served with the grounds on which the requisite satisfaction of the District Magistrate was said to have been founded. The grounds indicate that the District Magistrate had on the basis of facts disclosed in the report made by the Additional District Magistrate (Supplies) concluded that the petitioner was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to supplies of a commodity essential to the community on following grounds :- (1) That he was found carrying coal to Kher wiithout accounting for it in his records and with a view to effect its fictitious sale. He had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3,\7, Essential Commodities Act ; (2) That he was carrying the said coal to Kher with a view to sell it in black-market; and (3) that under the Coal Control Order no coal depot-holder could sell any coal outside the place of his business as shown in his licence and in quantity in excess of 10 quintals. The petitioner made a representation to the State Government wherein he denied that the coal recovered on 26th of October, 1983 belonged to him. According to him one Kishan Kumar resident of Bulandshahr was bringing coal in truck No. DHL 4537 from Banaras. On 23rd of October, 1983 when he reached Sikander Rao, district Aligarh, at about 3 a. m., his truck was over turned and Kishan Kumar lodged an information with regard to that incident at Police Station Sikander Rao on 24th October, 1983. As Kishan Kumar was anxious to see that the coal which was being carried in the truck, reached its destination, he contacted the petitioner who also carried on the business of hiring of trucks at his coal depot. Due to certain reasons petitioner's trucks were not available on that date. Accordingly, he referred Kishan Kumar to "Chaudhari Transports" for hiring a truck. He also told Kishan Kumar that in case there was any difficulty, he could contact him at the coal depot. After hiring truck No. UPB 3862, Kishan Kumar informed the petitioner about it. The petitioner also requested Kishan Kumar to tell the driver that when on its return trip the truck was to proceed to Kher, he should pick up the petitioner, who also had some urgent work at Kher, from his coal depot and to carry him to Kher. Accordingly, when the truck, after being loaded with coal at Sikander Rao, was proceeding towards "Om Coal Depot" at Kher, the driver stopped it in the way and picked him up as well. At that time driver of the truck told him that Kishan Kumar had stayed back for getting bis overturned truck inspected and that is why he did not come with him. The petitioner asserted that in the circumstances he was not responsible for producing the invoice etc. in respect of the coal carried in the truck. 5. IN due course the representation made by the petitioner was considered by the State Government and the Advisory Board which rejected the same and the order for petitioner's detention was confirmed by the State Government. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. 5. IN due course the representation made by the petitioner was considered by the State Government and the Advisory Board which rejected the same and the order for petitioner's detention was confirmed by the State Government. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. A perusal of the order for petitioner's detention made by the District Magistrate on the file shows that in his opinion the activity of the petitioner in carrying coal without valid documents with a view to sell the same in what he considered to be black-market was an activity which was prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as envisaged by Section 3 of the Act and that it was necessary to detain him with a view to prevent him from indulging in similar activity in future. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that inasmuch as there did not exist any statutory order passed by any competent authority fixing the price for sale of hard coke, there could be no question of selling that commodity in black market. Moreover, the alleged activity of the petitioner in carrying hard coke in a truck unaccompanied by invoice and bill etc. did not result in contravention of any statutory provision. The District Magistrate was, therefore, not justified in treating such activity as illegal and to, on its basis, concluded that the petitioner was indulging in any activity which was prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. The grounds on which the order for petitioner's detention was based were thus irrelevant and non-existent. Accordingly, the impugned order stands vitiated. 7. LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that hard coke is an essential commodity. According to him, the circumstances, in which the petitioner is alleged to have been found carrying the same provided relevant material for the District Magistrate to conclude that the petitioner was going to sell hard coke in black-market and that the said activity was prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. The order for petitioner's detention founded on such material is fully in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act. 8. The order for petitioner's detention founded on such material is fully in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act. 8. IN order to appreciate the submissions made before us it will be useful to determine the scope of the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community", used in Section 3 of the Act. Relevant portion of Section 3 of the Act runs thus :- "3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.-(1) The Central Government or a State Government or any officer of the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community it is necessary to do so, make an order directing that such person be detained. Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community" means- (a) committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 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 (10 of 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". This section empowers the authorities specified therein to detain any person on being satisfied that it is necessary to do so with a view to prevent such a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. This section empowers the authorities specified therein to detain any person on being satisfied that it is necessary to do so with a view to prevent such a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Explanation added to sub-section (1) of Section 3 explains that for purposes of the sub-section the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community" would mean- (a) committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 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 (10 of 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. Whereas under clause (a) any activity which results in committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable under tie Essential Commodities Act, 1955 etc. is to be treated as an activity prejudicial to maintenance of supplies essential to the community, the activity contemplated by clause (b) for this purpose is the activity which amounts to dealing in essential commodity as defined in Essential Commodities Act or any other commodity essential to the life of the community with a view to make a gain in a manner which would defeat the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or some other law referred to therein. Generally speaking whereas according to clause (a) a detention order can be passed with a view to prevent a person from committing an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act or under any other law relating to control of production, supply or distribution of a commodity essential to life of the community, that according to clause (b) can be made with a view to prevent that person from indulging in what is commonly known as black-marketing. The Act was thus intended to prevent aforementioned two evils only. The Act was thus intended to prevent aforementioned two evils only. The position becomes crystal clear when the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act arc read in juxtaposition with the provisions contained in Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 which runs thus :- "(2) The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community" does not include "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community" as defined in Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black- marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, and accordingly, no order of detention shall be made under this Act on any ground on which an order of detention may be made under that Act." Generality of the expression "prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies...essential to the community" used in Section 3 of the National Security Act is wide enough to include within its ambit not only the activities of the nature envisaged by Explanation to Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, but also other activities having direct or indirect bearing on maintenance of supplies essential to the community. But then the Explanation added to sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act excludes from its ambit such activities which even though are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community, are covered by the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. This makes the legislative intention quite clear that whereas action to prevent prejudicial activities of the nature specified in Explanation to Section 3 (i) of the Prevention of Black- Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act can be taken under that Act, that for preventing remaining activities which affect maintenance of supplies essential to the community can be taken under the National Security Act. It is now well settled that an explanation appended to a section or clause gets incorporated into it, and becomes an integral part of it, and has no independent existence apart from it. There is, in the eye of law, only one enactment of which both the section and the explanation, are two inseparable parts : they move in a body if they move at all-see Bengal Immunity Co, Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1955 SC 661 at page 667. The orthodox function of an explanation is to explain the meaning and effect of the main provision to which it is an explanation and to clear up any doubt or ambiguity in it. But ultimately it is the intention of the Legislature which is paramount and mere use of a label cannot control or deflect such intention. It must be remembered that the Legislature has different ways of expressing itself and in the last analysis the words used by the Legislature are the true repository of the intent of the Legislature and they must be construed having regard to the context and setting in which they occur. Therefore, even though the provision in question has been called an explanation, we must construe it according to its plain and not on any-prior consideration (See Dattatraya Govind v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 915 at page 928). 9. VIEWED in the light of the provisions contained in Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, the Legislative intention becomes evidently clear that the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community" used in Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, covers within its ambit only such activities as have been specified in clauses (a) or (b) of the Explanation appended to the said sub-section, and no other activity. Accordingly, only such activities which result in committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act or under any other law for the time being in force relating to control of the production, or supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community or dealing in any commodity which is an essential commodity as defined in Essential Commodities Act, 1955, or with respect to which provisions have been made in any such other law, with a view to making gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act or other such law, alone can be considered to be activities to prevent which an order for detention under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, can be passed. We are in this view supported by the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt.Leharibai v. State of Karnataka, 1981 CrLJ 1048 . The view expressed by the Karnataka High Court in this regard seems to have been approved by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ganga Ram v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1982 CrLJ 1433 paragraph 24. 10. AS already stated, the District Magistrate has in the present case decided to direct petitioner's detention inter alia on the ground that petitioner's activity in carrying hard coke without valid documents (that is, bill and invoice) with a view to sell the same in black-market is an activity which was prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of a commodity essential to the community as envisaged by Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black-Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act. We have already explained that such an activity can be considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community only if it falls within the amoit either of clause (a) or clause (b) of the Explanation to Section 3 (1) of the Act. In the instant case, the case of the respondents is that the aforementioned objectionable activity of the petitioner falls in clause (a) of the Explanation inasmuch as it amounts to commission of an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. In the instant case, the case of the respondents is that the aforementioned objectionable activity of the petitioner falls in clause (a) of the Explanation inasmuch as it amounts to commission of an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act provides for punishment for contravention of any order made under Section 3 thereof. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the case falls under clause (a) of the Explanation inasmuch as the petitioner had contravened the provisions contained in U. P. Coal Control Order; 1977. However, our attention has not been invited to ;any provision in the U. P. ' Coal Control Order, 1977 which resricts movement of hard coke by a truck or obliges the person transporting it to carry invoice or hill in respect of that commodity along with him. Accordingly, it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner was carrying coal in the truck without bill or invoice he committed an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act and his case would not fall under the clause (a) of the; Explanation to Sect Learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged that the fact that the petitioner was carrying 12 metric tons and 310 kg. of coal in truck No. UPB 3862 itself shows that he was going to sell that coal at a place other than his licensed premises. As a coal depot- holder, the petitioner was entitled to effect only retail sale of coal as provided in U. P. Coal Control Order, 1977. The expression "retail sale" as defined in the U. P. Coal Control Order means sale of coal not exceeding 10 quintals on a day t.o any one consumer. The petitioner had thus contravened the provisions of the U. P. Coal Control Order as he was going to sell more than 10 quintals at a time to some one. Further, according to clause 3' of the licence issued to him under the provisions of the U. P. Coal Control Order, 1977, the petitioner could sell coal only at the place of business as indicated in his licence, but then he was going to sell it at Kher, that is, at a place other than his place of business, and as such he had contravened Condition No. 3' of his licence and thereby committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the U. P. Coal Control Order. 11. IN this regard it will be pertinent to note that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had either sold more than 10 quintals of coal to any one or that he sold it to some one at a place different from that indicated in his licence. Their case is that he was going to do so after taking the coal to Kher. Provisions of the U. P. Coal Control Order would in this regard stand violated only if actual sale of more than 10 quintals of coal at a place other than that indicated in petitioner's licence had taken place. Whereas clause (a) to the Explanation provides that committing or instigating any person to commit an offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act would constitute an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, it does not lay down that preparation to commit an offence, punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, would also be deemed to be an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. 12. ON the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 713 , it is clear that the activity of the petitioner,till the stage the truck was checked in the way, merely amounted to preparation to commit an offence which has not been made punishable under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Accordingly, the District Magistrate was not justified in proceeding on the basis that preparation made by the petitioner to dispose of the said coal in one lot at a place other than the place of business as indicated in his licence was an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies as defined in clause (a) of Explanation to Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Black- Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents next attempted to justify the view of the District Magistrate that the petitioner had indulged in activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community by referring to clause (b) of the Explanation and urged that while transporting the said coke by truck without the covering documents and with a view to sell the same at Kher the petitioner was dealing in a commodity, which was an essential commodity, with a view to make gain in a manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of the Act. When called upon to identify the provision of the Act, object whereof was being directly or indirectly defeated by the said activity, learned Govt. Advocate was not able to identify any such provision. We are accordingly not satisfied that the alleged' objectionable activity of the petitioner can be said prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community in the sense in which the said expression has been defined by clause (b) of Explanation to Section 3 (1) of the Act either. 13. MOREOVER, we find that one of the: principal reasons why the District Magistrate concluded that the petitioner was indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community was that the petitioner was going to sell hard coke in black- market. Normal concept of selling a commodity in the black-market is to sell the same at a price higher than that which, in the circumstances, would be its fair price. Fairness of the price may be judged either on the basis of the price fixed under some statutory provision or with reference to social and economic conditions prevailing in the market. In the instant case it is not disputed that no statutory price for sale of hard coke had been fixed by any statutory authority. There was also no material before the District Magistrate on the basis of which he could feel satisfied that the petitioner was going to sell said hard coke at a price higher than which, considering prevailing economic conditions, could be consideredto be fair. 14. There was also no material before the District Magistrate on the basis of which he could feel satisfied that the petitioner was going to sell said hard coke at a price higher than which, considering prevailing economic conditions, could be consideredto be fair. 14. IN the case of Kamla Prasad v. District Magistrate, AIR 1975 SC 726 , the petitioner of that case was detained under the provisions of the Maintenance of INternal Security Act on the ground that he had hoarded stock of match-boxes and soaps and concealed the same without displaying the stock and further that he had refused to sell the same to a purchaser saying that he had no stock. It was accordingly inferred that the petitioner was indulging in activity which was prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community, in the sense in which the expression had been used in a provision similar to that contained in Sec. 3 (2) of the National Security Act. The Supreme Court concluded that dealing in match-boxes and soap was governed by the provisions of the Bihar Essential Commodities other than Food-grains Prices and Stocks (Display and Control) Order, 1967, issued under the Essential Commodities Act and not with standing that match-boxes were commodities not covered by Schedule II which mentioned the commodities which could not be withheld from sale, the activity of the petitioner was such on the basis of which the only conclusion that could be drawn was that the petitioner was hoarding the stock for the purposes of sale in black market and thus to make undue profit. This decision of the Supreme Court goes to support the view that a commodity can be said to have been sold in black-market if it is so sold with a view to make undue profit. Learned counsel for the respondent referred us to the case of Dinanath v. Collector and D. M. Keonjhar, AIR 1975 SC 1093 , in support of his submission that existence of a statutory price or the commodity being sold for earning undue profit is not a pre-requisite for finding that the commodity was being sold in black-market. We have carefully read the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, but we do not find anything therein to support the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent. We have carefully read the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, but we do not find anything therein to support the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent. Indeed, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Hema Raj Jhunjhunwala v. State of Bihar, 1983 CrLJ 1206 ;at page 1213 (paragraph 16) gone to the extent of saying that the questioa of black-marketing in the absence of any fixation of price at any stage is simply a misnomer. 15. WE accordingly conclude that one of the principal reasons for directing petitioner's detention, namely, that bis activity in carrying hard coke without valid documents with a view to sell the same in black-market was prejudicial to maintenance of supplies essential to the community as contemplated by Explanation to Section 3 (1), is not sustainable, and the order for petitioner's detention stands vitiated. 16. IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed not to keep petitioner Munnalal Agarwal in detention in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate dated 29th of October, 1983, made under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act. 1980 and to release him from custody forthwith unless petitioner's detention is otherwise required in connection with some other case.