A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been detained pursuant to the order dated 5/03/1988 passed by the District Magistrate Bharuch under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ). The order has been passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. ( 2 ) IN the grounds of detention it is disclosed that the petitioner was running a fair-price shop at village Kavitha Taluka-Bharuch in respect of which the licence was issued in the name of one Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel. The petitioner himself posed to be Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel before the public as well as before the relevant Government Officers. LIe has signed as Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel in various Government records and in the records maintained for purposes of running fair-price shop. Thus he misrepresented before the people by impersonation and committed the offence of cheating the people as well as the Government. The fair-price shop was raided and searched between February 19 and February 26 1988 In respect of essential commodities such as pamolene oil rice sugar wheat etc. the stock-registers were not properly maintained and the stock was not in accordance with the registers. Eight false bills were issued in the name of fictitious persons as far as food for all scheme is concerned while in the scheme or public distribution of food even false bills were issued in respect of sugar pamolene oil and rice. Several irregularities of similar nature were found and the same are mentioned in the grounds of detention. It is not necessary to refer to all of them for the purposes of deciding this petition Suffice it to say that as mentioned in the grounds of detention it is disclosed that while running fair-price shop by impersonation as Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel the petitioner is alleged to have committed several offences for breach of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licence Regulation and Declaration of Stocks Order 1981 and is also alleged to have committed offence under Secs. 416 and 417 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner-detenu has been served with the grounds of detention and copies of document on which reliance was placed by the detaining authority. 416 and 417 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner-detenu has been served with the grounds of detention and copies of document on which reliance was placed by the detaining authority. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no material with the detaining authority to show that the alleged irregularities wore committed with a view to making gain. In her submission the provisions of Sec. 3 (1) of the Act read with the explanation required that the alleged irregularities should have been committed with a view to making gain. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance is placed on the decision of this High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 1110 of 1986 decided on 23/12/1985 (Coram: D. C. Gheewala and J. P. Desai JJ. a short note of the aforesaid judgment has been reported in Dineshkumar Kantilal v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1987 (1) GLH (UJ-13) page 11 ). In that case the accused had sold 257 oil tins without issuing bills. The detaining authority either in the order passed by it or in the grounds nowhere mentioned that he had satisfied himself that the aforesaid illegal activity was with a view to making gain. Since there was no material with the detaining authority on the basis of which he could have come to the conclusion that the detenu had committed the alleged acts with a view to making gain the order of detention was quashed and set aside. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the aforesaid decision does not help the petitioner. The explanation to Sec. 3 (1) of the Act defines the phrase acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community occuring in Sec. 3 (1 ). ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the aforesaid decision does not help the petitioner. The explanation to Sec. 3 (1) of the Act defines the phrase acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community occuring in Sec. 3 (1 ). The explanation reads as follows:"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 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 or other law aforesaid". Clause (a) and clause (b) of the explanation are independent of each other. Clause (b) refers to the activities of any person who deals in any commodity which is an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act 1955 or who deals with any commodity with respect to which provisions have been made in any such other law relating to the control of production supply or distribution of or trade and commerce in any commodity essential to the community. Thus it is only in respect of persons dealing in such commodities which are referred to in clause (b) of the explanation the phrase with a view to making gain in any manner would be applicable. The aforesaid phrase has no application whatsoever to the cases of persons who are covered by clause (a) of the explanation. Thus it is only in respect of persons dealing in such commodities which are referred to in clause (b) of the explanation the phrase with a view to making gain in any manner would be applicable. The aforesaid phrase has no application whatsoever to the cases of persons who are covered by clause (a) of the explanation. ( 5 ) AS far as applicability of clause (a) of the explanation is concerned it would be sufficient to show: (1) that the person concerned commits or instigates any person to commit offences punishable under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 or (2) the person concerned commits or instigates any person to commit any offence punishable 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. ( 6 ) IN the instant case the petitioner is alleged to have committed offence referred to in clause (a ). He is also alleged to have dealt with essential commodities with a view to making gain. It is so disclosed in the grounds of detention. At several places in the grounds of detention it has been mentioned that irregularities mentioned therein have been committed by the petitioner-detenu with a view to sell the commodities at higher price in blackmarket and for the purposes of profiteering. In above view of the matter it cannot be said that the detaining authority had no material to arrive at the necessary satisfaction that the petitioner-detenu was dealing in the commodities in question with a view to making gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of the Act. ( 7 ) IN this connection it may also be noted that the alleged illegal activity referred to in explanation clause (b) need not and should not result in gain. What is necessary is that the activities should have been done with a view to making gain. After all those who indulge in such activities are making adventures. In an adventure if a person succeeds he may reap the fruits and he may be able to gain something At the same time wherever the possibility of larger margin of profits are there there will be the risk of larger losses also. Thus in an adventure one may have to incur loss. In an adventure if a person succeeds he may reap the fruits and he may be able to gain something At the same time wherever the possibility of larger margin of profits are there there will be the risk of larger losses also. Thus in an adventure one may have to incur loss. Therefore all that is required to be shown is that the activities referred to in clause (b) were with a view to making gain. In a given case it may be open to the detaining authority to show that the alleged activity on the part of the detenu was with a view to making gain is a matter of reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore even if such words are not specifically mentioned in the order of detention or in the grounds of detention it will still be open to the detaining authority to show that an overall reading of the order of detention and the grounds and also the affidavit-in-reply filed by the detaining authority the circumstance that the alleged activity was with a view to making was very much present in the mind of the detaining authority. From these very documents it can also be shown that for arriving at such satisfaction enough material was there. If the cumulative effect of all the circumstances taken together is that the dealings by the person could be only with a view to make gain then on the ground that the words with a view to making gain have not been specifically mentioned either in the order of detention or in the grounds of detention the order of detention cannot be set aside. ( 8 ) IN the instant case the activities which are referred to in clause (a) of the explanation are mentioned in the grounds. Dealings of the detenu which are referred to in clause (b) of the explanation are also mentioned in the grounds. In so many words it is mentioned in the grounds that those dealings were with a view to making gain. Assuming for a moment that such words are not properly translated in Gujarati (the grounds of detention are in Gujarati language) and such words are not there then even it is a matter of reasonable inference to be drawn from the cumulative effects of facts and circumstances of the case. Assuming for a moment that such words are not properly translated in Gujarati (the grounds of detention are in Gujarati language) and such words are not there then even it is a matter of reasonable inference to be drawn from the cumulative effects of facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts of the case the cumulative effect of all the circumstances is that it can reasonably be inferred that the detenu was dealing in commodities with a view to making gain. He was not running a charitable institution. He himself was impersonating and issuing false bills in the names of other persons. Such activities would be surely with a view to making gain only. To infer otherwise would be an insult to common sense and would amount to ignoring the hard realities of life and also the knowledge derived from experience of life. ( 9 ) IN above view of the matter the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not dealt in the essential commodities with a view to making gain and that there was no such material before the detaining authority cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a lesser drastic remedy could have been invoked. It was submitted that the licence for fair-price shop could have been suspended and/or cancelled and the petitioner ought not to have been detained. In the facts of the case the argument has no merits. The petitioner himself had no licence for running fair-price shop. He was running fair-price shop in the name of Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel. He impersonated as Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel. He posed himself before the people as well as before the Government authorities as Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel. He in fact signed in this name. Thus by making impersonation he made false represent at on before the people as well as before the Government authorities and committed offence of cheating by impersonation punishable under Secs. 416 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore suspension of licence which was in the name of one Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel would have been of no consequence whatsoever Had that licence been cancelled the petitioner would have impersonated himself as some other licence holder and would have continued the same activity. Therefore this contention cannot be accepted. 416 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore suspension of licence which was in the name of one Bipinchandra Jagdishbhai Patel would have been of no consequence whatsoever Had that licence been cancelled the petitioner would have impersonated himself as some other licence holder and would have continued the same activity. Therefore this contention cannot be accepted. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation made by the detenu has not been promptly considered by the appropriate authorities and therefore the detention order should be set aside. It is disclosed in the affidavit filed by the detaining authority that the representation dated 10/03/1988 made by the detenu was submitted to the Jail authorities on the same day at 18 20 hours. It was dispatched by the Jail authorities with forwarding letter dated 11/03/1988 The same was received in the office of the detaining authority on 16/03/1988 The representation was considered and rejected on 17/03/1988 Thus as far as consideration of the representation made to the detaining authority is concerned there is no delay whatsoever much less unreasonable and/or inordinate delay ( 12 ) THE representation made to the State Government was forwarded by the Jail authorities on 11/03/1988 It appears that it was received by the Section Officer concerned on 12/03/1988 and on the same day the Deputy Secretary had cleared the file. The next day i. e. 13/03/1988 being a public holiday the file could not be submitted to the Minister of Civil Supplies on that day and hence it was submitted to the Minister concerned on 14/03/1988 The Minister concerned has considered the same and taken decision thereon on 15/03/1988 Thus it is clear that at the State Government level also there was no delay. ( 13 ) AS far as consideration of the representation by the Central Government is concerned it is disclosed in the affidavit filed by one Shri A. Chandrasekhran Under Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies (Department of Civil Supplies) that the representation was received on 15/03/1988 Para-wise comments from State Government were called for on 16/03/1988 Para-wise comments were received on 21/03/1988 After examination of the same it was put up for consideration before the Under Secretary on 22/03/1988 and the Under Secretary considered the same on 23/03/1988 Thereafter the Joint Secretary of the Department rejected the same on 24/03/1988 By letter dated 25/03/1988 the decision was communicated to the detenu through the Jail authorities. Thus at this stage also there is no delay whatsoever. ( 14 ) WHILE examining the question with regard to delay in considering the representation by the appropriate authority one has to be pragmatic and one must have an eye on the realities of life. When it is stated that everydays delay should be explained this is required to be understood in pragmatic manner. Otherwise one may ask why not explain the delay of every hour and why not explain the delay minute by minute. All that is required to be seen is as to whether the authority concerned had shown due promptness. Even while judging due promptness on the part of the authorities concerned the fact that the authority concerned is working in the system where to work in tardy and prolonged fashion has become the rule of life. Unfortunately many a times promptness and quick despatch of work are considered to be under haste. In this connection the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. U. M. S. Ummu Saloama v. B. B. Gujarat and Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1191 may be profitably referred to. Unfortunately many a times promptness and quick despatch of work are considered to be under haste. In this connection the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Mst. U. M. S. Ummu Saloama v. B. B. Gujarat and Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1191 may be profitably referred to. After refering to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. W. T. Khambra reported in AIR 1980 SC 849 to the effect that time imperative can never be absolute or obsessive the Supreme Court observed as follows:"the occasional observations made by this Court that each days delay in dealing with the representation must be adequately explained are meant to emphasise the expedition with which the representation must be considered and not that it is a magical formula the slightest breach of which must result in the release of the detenu. Law deals with the facts of life. In law as in life there are no invariable absolutes. Neither life nor law can be reduced to more but despotic formulae". The aspect of delay in considering the representation is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid observations made by us and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and referred to hereinabove. In the facts of the case we do not consider that there was any delay in considering the representation at any of the levels that is to say at the level of detaining authority State Government or the Central Government. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon an unreparted decision of this High Court in (Bhupendrabhai Hargovindas Patel v. Dist. Magistrate and Ors.) Special Criminal Application No. 292 of 1988 decided in 13/07/1988 (Coram: J. P. Desai and N. B. Patel JJ ). Therein the Court found that there was no explanation for delay of four days. Therefore the Court observed that there being no explanation in the affidavit of the Under Secretary it was clear that the papers remained unattended to by any one. In the facts of the case the Court found that there was lack of due promptness on the part of the officers concerned. Therefore the Court observed that there being no explanation in the affidavit of the Under Secretary it was clear that the papers remained unattended to by any one. In the facts of the case the Court found that there was lack of due promptness on the part of the officers concerned. This decision turns on the facts of the case and rightly no principle has been laid down that even if there is one or two days delay the order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside. In the facts of this case there is not even one days delay. Therefore the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no help to the petitioner. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Government is required to make report to the Central Government as provided under Sec. 3 (4) of the Act within the specified time limit. It is contended that within this specified time limit report was not made to the Central Government and therefore the order is required to be set aside. Section 3 (4) of the Act provides that the State Government shall within seven days report the fact of approval of the order passed by the appropriate officer to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the necessity for the order. In the instant case the order of detention has been approved by the State Government on 15/03/1988 and the State Government reported the fact to the Central Government vide letter dated 15/03/1988 It was received by the appropriate department of the Central Government on 21/03/1988 It is so disclosed in the affidavit of one Mr. A. Chandrasekharan Under Secretary in the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies. In this view of the matter the contention raised that there is breach of the provisions of Sec. 3 (4) of the Act also cannot be accepted. ( 17 ) NO other contention is raised. There is no substance in the petition. Hence the petition is rejected. Rule discharged. Rule discharged. .