JUDGMENT H. N. Setb, J. 1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for writ of habeas corpus by Mohammad Yusuf and Mohammad Muslim who are father and son can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. Whereas writ petition no. 2499 of 1984 is by Mohammad Yusuf, the petitioner in writ petition no. 2500 of 1984 is Mohammad Muslim. 2. On 13th February, 1984, the District Magistrate Moradabad passed two different orders authorising the detention of Mohammad Yusuf and Mohammad Muslim under section 3 of the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The detention order along with the grounds therefor were served upon the two petitioners while they were in jail custody after surrendering themselves on 16th February, 1984 before the Special Judge Moradabad on 15th February, 1984 in connection with the case under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act that had been registered against them on 8th February, 1984. A perusal of the grounds for their detention served upon the two petitioners indicates that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that it was necessary to detain both of them with a view to prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the life of the community was based on the following facts. 3. That on 8th February, 1984 at about 12.30 in the noon Sri Chandra Lal, Regional Food Officer East Moradabad visited, the Coal Depot of M/s. Mohammad Yusuf and Sons Asalatpur, Moradabad wherein both Mohammad Yusuf and Mohammad Muslim were partners. At the time of inspection Mohammad Yusuf was present there and in his presence apart from mixed coke/pure coke ten metric tonnes i. e. 100 quintals of hard coke was also found stored there. No stock or price list was found displayed. On inquiry with regard to the purchase, sale and storage of the said hard coke being made, Mohammad Yusuf made a statement wherein he admitted that the firm had no licence under the provisions of the Coal Control Order, 1977 for Purchase, sale and storing hard coke. He also stated that the said hard coke had been obtained from a firm in Banaras on 7th February, 1984 and that he had one day earlier sold one quintal of hard coke at the rate of Rs. He also stated that the said hard coke had been obtained from a firm in Banaras on 7th February, 1984 and that he had one day earlier sold one quintal of hard coke at the rate of Rs. 130/- per quintal to Sri Kalman r/o Mohalla Manpur. Be did net issue any cash memo for the same as the price of the coal had net yet been paid to him. Mohammad Yusuf further informed that apart from cash memo becks all other records were with his Munshi and were not available on the spot. Inquiries made from the District Supply Office Moradabad (Coal Section) revealed that no coal depot licence for the year 1983-84 in Mohalla Asalatpur had been issued in the name of the firm wherein Mohammad Yusuf and Mohammad Muslim were partners. Mohammad Yusuf and Mohammad Muslim were thus found indulging in illegally importing, storing and selling hard coke without obtaining the licence. The said hard coke was accordingly seized by the authorities and after preparing the recovery memo was given in the Superdigi of Mohammad Husain son of Asgar. Mohammad Yusuf had also signed the said recovery memo. However, on finding an opportunity Mohammad Yusuf snatched the cash memo book and made good his escape. Aforementioned activities of Mohammad Yusuf and Mohammad Muslim constituted contravention of the provisions of the Coal Control Order, punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Both Mohammad Yusuf and Mohammad Muslim had thus illegally imported hard coke which was a commodity essential to the life of the community for purpose of storage and sale and had indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities. The District Magistrate Moradabad accordingly felt satisfied that it was necessary to detain Mohammad Yusuf and Mohammad Muslim with a view to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities. 4. The District Magistrate Moradabad accordingly felt satisfied that it was necessary to detain Mohammad Yusuf and Mohammad Muslim with a view to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities. 4. A perusal of the aforesaid facts on which the order of detention was passed indicates that the District Magistrate's satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the two petitioners with a view to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities to the community was based on the ground that the two petitioners had committed offences punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 inasmuch as they had illegally imported hard coke and had after storing the same sold a part of it without obtaining a licence under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Coal Control Order, 1977. Learned counsel appearing for the two petitioners questioned the validity of the two orders passed by the District Magistrate authorising their detention on the ground that the same had been made under total misconception of legal position, and without application of mind to relevant facts. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties we are inclined to accept this submission. 5. A perusal of the orders passed by the District Magistrate shows that his satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the two petitioners with a view to prevent them from acting in a prejudicial manner was based primarily on the grounds that the firm in which the two petitioners were partners had illegally imported hard coke and had thereafter stored the same and sold without obtaining a licence as contemplated by the District Magistrate in support of the aforementioned grounds consisted of the report made by the Officers of the Supply Department after they inspected the petitioner's firm on 8th February, 1984 as also the statement said to have been made by Mohammad Yusuf. The expression 'import' has been defined in clause 2 (g) of the Coal Control Order, 1977 as follows : " 'import' means to bring or caused to be brought into the territory of State of Uttar Pradesh." Neither the report which the authorities made after inspecting the petitioners' coal depot on 8th February, 1984 nor the statement of Mohammad Yusuf contains any material to show that the said hard coke had been brought or caused to be brought by the petitioners into the territory. On the other hand, the statement of Mohammad Yusuf indicates that he had obtained delivery of the said hard coke from a party in Banaras. There was thus no material before the District Magistrate on the basis of which be could have concluded that the two petitioners had imported the said hard coke into the territory of State of Uttar Pradesh. 6. It is true that hard coke is coal within the meaning of expression as defined in clause 2 (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Coal Control Order, 1977. Section 4 of the said order lays down that 'no person shall import coal and carry on business as a coal agent, carry on business as a coal depot holder or run a brick kiln with coal except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued under this Order. Clause 3, however, provides an exception in respect of the applicability of the Coal Control Order, 1977 to the extent indicated therein. Paragraph (b) of the said clause lays down that provisions contained in sections 4 to 10, 14 and 16 shall not apply to slack coal and hard coke for industrial consumption. IT will thus be seen that the necessity to take out a licence for the purpose of importing coal and for carrying on business as a coal agent, or as a coal depot holder or for running a brick kiln, does not arise in respect of the slack coal and hard coke for industrial consumption. Form 'B' to the Coal Control Order is a form prescribed for licence for wholesale dealer of coal (coal agent) for soft coal and slack coal for domestic consumption and for use by brick kilns. Form 'C' prescribes a form of licence in respect of a retail dealer (Coal Depot Holder) of soft coke, hard coke, steam coal for domestic consumption. Form 'C' prescribes a form of licence in respect of a retail dealer (Coal Depot Holder) of soft coke, hard coke, steam coal for domestic consumption. A perusal of these forms together with paragraph (b) of clause 3 shows that there can be hard coke for industrial purpose as also for domestic purpose. Whereas a licence in Form 'C' would be required to sell hard coke for domestic consumption but no licence under clause 4 would be required in connection with the business of retail sale in hard coke for industrial consumption. In the circumstances unless there was some material before the District Magistrate to show that the storage of coal and its sale in retail by the petitioner's firm was for domestic consumption and not for industrial consumption, he could not conclude that the petitioners had contravened the provisions of clause 4 of the Coal Control Order, 1977. It appears that this aspect had completely escaped the notice of the District Magistrate and that he passed the impugned order under an impression that in as much as hard coke fell within the definition of word 'coal', the petitioner was bound to obtain a licence if he wanted to carry on business in retail sale in it. In our opinion while passing the impugned order the District Magistrate had failed to apply his mind to a very material aspect of the case. Again, so far as the order of detention against the petitioner Muslim is concerned, we find that apart from the fact that the statement of Mohammad Yusuf indicates that his son Mohammad Muslim was also a partner with him in the coal business. There was absolutely no material before the District Magistrate to indicate that Mohammad Muslim had in any way himself acted in a prejudicial manner with regard to the dealing in coal. The District Magistrate came to the conclusion that Mohammad Muslim had committed an offence under section 3/7 of the aforesaid Act merely because the said offence had been committed by a firm of which he also appeared, vide statement made by Mohammad Yusuf, to be a partner. The District Magistrate came to the conclusion that Mohammad Muslim had committed an offence under section 3/7 of the aforesaid Act merely because the said offence had been committed by a firm of which he also appeared, vide statement made by Mohammad Yusuf, to be a partner. Section 10 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act provides that "if the person contravening an order made under section 3 is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Under this sub-section it is the company as also persons who, at the time of contravention, were in charge of the conduct of the business of the company, alone are deemed to have committed the offence. Even though there was material before the District Magistrate to show that Mohammad Muslim was a partner in the business of coal with Mohammad Yusuf there was no material before him to show that Mohammad Muslim was in charge of the said business. As a matter of fact, the material indicated that it was Mohammad Yusuf who was in charge of the said business. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 lays down that "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly." The section makes it absolutely clear that where an offence punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is said to be committed by a firm, it is only such partner who consents to or connives at the commission of such offence or commission of offence is attributable to his negligence, that alone can be said to have committed the offence punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. In the instant case the District Magistrate did not apply his mind to this crucial aspect of the case and did not try to find out, whether the alleged offence had been committed by his father Mohammad Yusuf with his consent, connivance or commission or whether the same was attributable to Mohammad Muslim's negligence. In the result, we find that in passing the detention orders against two petitioners the District Magistrate acted under misconception of law and that he before coming to the conclusion that the two petitioners had contravened the provisions of the Coal Control Order, 1977 and thus committed offence punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the District Magistrate did not apply his mind to the relevant aspects which should have been looked into by him. Accordingly the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the two petitioners committed an offence punishable under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, also stands vitiated. 7. In the result it is not possible to sustain the petitioner's detention authorised by the District Magistrate vide his two orders passed on 13th February, 1984. 8. Both the petitions therefore succeed and are allowed. Respondents are directed not to keep the two petitioners under detention in pursuance of the orders dated 13th February, 1984 passed by the District Magistrate Moradabad and to release them from the custody forthwith unless they are required to be detained under some other authority. Petitions allowed.