H. N. SETH, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Madan Gopal questions the validity of his detention authorised by the District Magistrate, Aligarh under the provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide his order dated 17th of October, 1983. ( 2 ) PETITIONERs detention has been directed on the ground that on 14th of October 1983 he was carrying 9000 liters of kerosene oil in a tanker. The authorities wanted to stop the tanker, but the tanker did not stop. It was chased and subsequently it was stopped and the petitioner along with his driver and cleaner were arrested. Immediately samples of kerosene oil were taken and requisite recovery memos were prepared. The petitioner did not have any licence for dealing in kerosene oil or storing the same. He was also not an authorised retail distributor of kerosene oil. The District Magistrate accordingly concluded that the petitioner was indulging in illegal trade in kerosene oil and that it was necessary to detain him with a view to prevent him from so acting. ( 3 ) IN due course petitioners representation was considered by the Advisory Board and the State Government and was ultimately rejected. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed the present petition contending that the article which was being carried by him in the tanker was mineral terpentine oil and not kerosene oil. According to him mineral terpentine oil is not an essential commodity and as such the order passed for his detention appears to be wholly misconceived and outside the purview of the Act. In support of this. submission he contended that the sample which was taken by the authorities at the time of petitioners arrest on 14th of October, 1983 was never sent for chemical examination and the authorities never took care to verify whether the commodity carried by the petitioner was in fact kerosene oil which is an essential commodity. On 12th of December, 1983 this Bench made an order requiring the Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, to get the said sample chemically examined and thereafter to place the report of the chemical examiner before the Court on 2nd January, 1984. On 12th of December, 1983 this Bench made an order requiring the Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, to get the said sample chemically examined and thereafter to place the report of the chemical examiner before the Court on 2nd January, 1984. The samples have since been chemically examined and the Government Advocate has produced before us the report of the chemical Examiner which indicates that the commodity carried by the petitioner in the tanker was in fact kerosene oil. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the respondent stands vitiated for the reason that the commodity carried by the petitioner in the tanker was mineral terpentine oil (which is not an essential commodity) and not kerosene oil as mentioned in the detention order. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next contended that under Section 3 of the Act the Officer authorised by the State Government is empowered to direct detention of a person if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so with a view to prevent such person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Clause (a) to the Explanation added to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act lays down that for purposes of this subsection the expression acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community means 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 the control of the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community. He contended that according to clause (5) of the Kerosene Control Order, 1962 it is only storage or sale of kerosene oil without licence which has been made a punishable. Contravention of Kerosene Control Order could take place only if the petitioner was found selling or storing kerosene oil without licence. In the instant case on the allegation of the respondents themselves the petitioner was merely transporting kerosene oil, which activity does not amount to sale or storage thereof Petitioners activity therefore, did not fall within the ambit of Clause (5) of the Kerosene Control Order. There is no other law which, it can be said, the petitioner had contravened by transporting the kerosene oil. There is no other law which, it can be said, the petitioner had contravened by transporting the kerosene oil. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act and as such his activity could not be considered to be an activity which was prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Hence the respondents were not competent to make the order for petitioners detention. ( 6 ) WE are unable to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Apart from Clause (a) to the Explanation added to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, there also is clause (b) which provides that for purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 3 the expression action in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community would mean dealing in any commodity which is an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act, with a view to make again in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of that Act or other law as aforesaid. There is no manner of doubt that kerosene oil is an essential commodity. While the petitioner was transporting the said essential commodity in a tanker in the manner alleged by the respondents, he was certainly dealing in that commodity. Moreover, it is obvious that while the kerosene oil was being carried by the petitioner it was intended to be subsequently disposed of and such disposal of the kerosene oil would certainly have directly or indirectly intended to defeat the provisions contained in the Essential Commodities Act. The activity of the petitioner was thus an activity which was prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community as defined in Section 3 of the Act, and the District Magistrate was fully competent to make an order for petitioners detention. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner had been arrested in connection with an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on 14th of October, 1983 and that he was still in jail when the order dated 17th of October, 1983 was made. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner had been arrested in connection with an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on 14th of October, 1983 and that he was still in jail when the order dated 17th of October, 1983 was made. The object or making an order under Section 3 of the Act is to prevent a person from acting in a mariner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and not to punish him for the offence which he had committed. According to the petitioner, the District Magistrate was not aware that the petitioner was likely to be set free and as such the order passed by him directing petitioners detention under the provisions of the Act while the petitioner was still in custody suffers from defect of non-application of mind. We are unable to accept this submission as well. The grounds for petitioners detention clearly indicate that the District Magistrate was aware of the fact that the petitioner was under detention when he passed the order dated 17th of October 1983. It has been averred in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate that while making the order he was of opinion that the petitioner might be soon released as persons accused of offences punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act are generally released on bail by courts of law. In these circumstances it cannot be slid that merely because the petitioner was in custody when the impugned order was made by the District Magistrate on 17th of October, 1983, the District Magistrate had no reason to think that the petitioner was going to be so released and, if so released, he would in future also act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies of kerosene oil which is a commodity essential to the community. ( 8 ) IN the end learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while his case was to be considered by the Advisory Board, he asked for certain material so as to be able to place his case effectively before the Advisory Board, but those materials were not supplied to him. The petitioner was thus deprived of a fair opportunity to plead his case before the Advisory Board and this defect renders his detention illegal. The petitioner was thus deprived of a fair opportunity to plead his case before the Advisory Board and this defect renders his detention illegal. Copies of the applications in this regard made by the petitioner have been annexed as Annexures-2 and 3 to the supplementary affidavit filed by him. A perusal of these applications indicates that the petitioner wanted to know if the samples of the commodity recovered from his possession on 14th of October, 1983 had been sent for chemical examination and, if so, what had been its result; and secondly, whether on 14th of October 1983 there was lot of movement in the market or not. So far as the question regarding the sample is concerned, it appears that the report of the chemical examiner in that regard had not been obtained till then and as such it was not possible to tell the petitioner about the result of any such chemical examination. Merely because the petitioner was not informed that the sample bad not been sent for chemical examination does nor in any way affect his right to make representation. As already stated, the sample has since been chemically examined and there is no manner of doubt that the commodity concerned was kerosene oil. Kerosene oil is a commodity existence of which can be detected by mere sight and smell for that chemical examination is not at all necessary. Be that as it may, in the instant case the sample has since been chemically examined and there cannot be any doubt that the inference drawn by the authorities on the basis of physical appearance and smell of the commodity concerned was absolutely justified. So far as the question of informing the petitioner whether there was movement in the market or not is concerned, we think, there was no obligation on the respondents to furnish such an information to the petitioner for enabling him to make the representation. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, we are not satisfied with any of the arguments raised by the petitioner for questioning the validity of his detention. ( 10 ) THE petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .