JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The order of detention and continued detention of the detenu pursuant to the order of the District Magistrate under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act 7 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is under challenge in this writ application. The detenu was a dealer in kerosene. The District Magistrate, Cuttack, on being satisfied that the detenu has disposal of the kerosene in a clandestine manner without supplying to the consumers and further on coming to the conclusion that the detenu has resorted to Blackmarketing and has made wrongful gain by putting the consumer community at large to sustain wrongful loss and thereby jeopardising the interest of the community, In order to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity essential to the community, passed the order of detention in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 3 of the Act on 31-3-1988. The grounds of detention were also prepared, but the detenu actually was detained on 4-8-1988 and the grounds were served on 6-8-1988. The order of detention was duly approved by the State Government and the case of the detenu was also placed before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board also after considering the materials placed before it reported to the State Government that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. The detention of the detenu thereafter was confirmed by the State Government. The detenu in the meantime bad filed a representation to the State Government and the same had also been rejected by the Government. The detenu therefore, has approached this Court assailing the order of detention on several grounds. 2. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, raises the following contentions in assailing the order of detention: (i) There has been an infraction of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act inasmuch as the State Government has not reported the fact to the Central Government, within seven days of the date of approval and infraction of such a mandatory requirement vitiates the order of detention. (ii) The order of detention having been passed on 31-3-1988 and not having, been served on the detenu till 4-8-1988, the order is ipso facto vitiated since the satisfaction of the detaining authority which was there on 31-3-1988 could not be present on 4-8-1988, (iii) Though under law, it was obligatory on the part of the detaining authority to serve the grounds of detention as soon as may be, but not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than ten days from the date of detention as contained' in Section 8 of the Act, the said grounds had not actually been served on the detenu at all and, therefore, the detention must be held to have been vitiated. (iv) The detenu was not supplied with copies of an relevant documents on which the satisfaction of the detaining authority is based and, therefore, there was no reasonable opportunity to the detenu for making an effective, representation and on that score the order of detention is vitiated. (v) There has been delay in disposing of the re-presentation at the detenu and such delay without any explanation has vitiated the continued detention of the detenu. (vi) The grounds indicate that the transaction in respect of his brother Mrutyunjay has been taken into consideration and that must be held to be an irrelevant consideration so tar as the detention of the Petitioner is concerned and if one of the grounds is held to be irrelevant the order of detention is liable to be quashed. (vii) There has been an infraction of Section 10 of the Act inasmuch as the appropriate Government did not place before the Advisory Board the relevant papers and the grounds on which the order of detention is made as well as the representation of the detenu within three weeks from the date of detention, as required u/s 10 of the Act and on account of infraction of the said mandatory provision, the detention of the detenu is vitiated. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority, each of the assertions made by the Petitioner has been refuted and Mr. Patra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, in his submissions also repelled the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the detaining authority, each of the assertions made by the Petitioner has been refuted and Mr. Patra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, in his submissions also repelled the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. Further, the tile of the State Government in relation to the detention of the Petitioner was also produced before us for examining the correctness of several assertions made by the Petitioner. 4. We would now examine the contentions raised by the Petitioner in seriatim. So far as the first contention is concerned, there is no dispute with the proposition of law that the State Government is obliged to report the fact of detention to the Central Government within seven days of the date of approval of the order of detention. It has been categorically stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government (opposite party No. 1) that after approval of the detention order, the tact was reported to the Central Government on 14-4-1988 which is obviously within seven days of the date of approval. We also find from the file produced before us that the assertions made in the counter affidavit are correct. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the Petitioner's contention and the same is accordingly rejected. 5. So tar as the second contention is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner elaborates his argument by contending that the order of detention under the Act is a preventive one and is not a punitive one and therefore, on the date the detention is made if the detaining authority did not have the requisite opinion that the detenu would indulge himself in a manner affecting maintenance of supplies essential to the community then the order of detention must be struck down. In this connection the learned Counsel further contends that in view of the gap between the order of detention and its actual service on the detenu even if the detaining authority had the requisite satisfaction on the day the order was passed there is no material that the same satisfaction continued on the date the detention order was served on the detenu and consequently, the detention in question must be struck down. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, it has been asserted by the detaining authority that immediately after the detention order was passed the Superintendent of Police. Cut tack, was requested to execute the order of detention but the said Superintendent of Police in his confidential letter intimated the detaining authority that the detenu had left his village and was residing at some place in Bhubaneswar. The detaining authority thereafter issued orders for search of the detenu and the order could be served only on 4.8.1988 when the detenu was found. The delay in service of the order of detention is 011 account of the fact that the detenu' himself bad absconded and kept himself concealed somewhere and in the premises, as aforesaid, it cannot be said that the delay in serving the order of detention vitiates the detention of the detenu. Mr. Patra, the learned Additional Government Advocate reiterate the said contention while arguing on behalf of the opposite parties. While therefore, there is no dispute with the proposition of law urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any force in the said contention. The delay in serving the order of detention on the detenu is on account of the conduct of the detenu himself who somehow having come to know the order of detention absconded and could not be traced out. That apart the period that lapsed between the order of detention and its service on the detenu is not such so as to be held that the detaining authority had not the requisite satisfaction on the date the order was served on the detenu. In view of the assertions made in the counter affidavit that the detaining authority had taken all possible steps for serving the order of detention on the detenu immediately after the order was passed by him and the same could be served only when the detenu could be traced out, we do not find any infraction of any provisions of the Act in serving the order of detention or in continuing the detention of the Petitioner. The second contention of the Petitioner must, therefore, be rejected. 6. The second contention of the Petitioner must, therefore, be rejected. 6. Coming to the third contention, there can be no dispute that the grounds of detention must he served on the detenu in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act. But there is no force in the Petitioner's contention that the said ground of detention has not been served on the detenu at all as we find from the file produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the grounds of detention were duly served on the detenu through the Jailor in the jail where the detenu had been lodged and the detenu himself had signed in token of receipt of the order of detention. Consequently, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on this score fails. 7. Similarly, so far as the fourth contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, we do not find any force in the same. The learned Additional Government Advocate produced in Court before us a document which indicates that all the relevant documents including the statements of persons recorded by the public authorities on which the detaining authority had relied upon in forming his subjective satisfaction were served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention. There is no assertion in the writ application that the detenu had asked for any other document other than those served on him. The Petitioner is also unable to point out his finger on any document on which the detaining authority bad placed reliance and yet the same bad not been supplied to the detenu. In the premises, as aforesaid there has been no denial of an effective representation to the detenu by not serving the necessary documents and consequently the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner fails. 8. So far as the contention regarding delay in disposal of the re-presentation of the detenu is concerned, we find from the relevant records that the detenu had made a representation on 28-8-1988. The said representation was received by the Collector on 27-8-1988 and the Collector sent the same to the Government which reached the Government on 30-8-1988. 8. So far as the contention regarding delay in disposal of the re-presentation of the detenu is concerned, we find from the relevant records that the detenu had made a representation on 28-8-1988. The said representation was received by the Collector on 27-8-1988 and the Collector sent the same to the Government which reached the Government on 30-8-1988. The Government sought for certain clarifications from the detaining authority and on receipt of the clarification the file passed through different officials, namely the Deputy Secretary to the Food and Civil Supplies Department, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Food and Civil Supplies Department and ultimately the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies. The Minister passed the order on 11-9-1988. We do not find that, there has been delay in disposing of the representation of the detenu so that be can make a Relevance that his constitutional right of his representation being considered expeditiously has been infringed in an, manner. In our opinion, there has been no delay in disposal of the Petitioner's representation and we accordingly reject the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on this score. 9. So far as the next contention is concerned. Mr. Misra for the Petitioner contends that it is in face the transaction of his brother Mrutyunjaya which was considered by the detaining authority to be the activity of the detenu and therefore, the same was an irrelevant consideration and if one of the grounds in irrelevant then the entire order of detention must be held to be vitiated. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Motilal Jain Vs. State of Bihar and Others Kuso Sah Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, and Pushkar Mukherjee and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal, Mr. Patra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, does not dispute the proposition that if one ground is vague or irrelevant then the entire order of detention is vitiated, but according to the learned Additional Government Advocate, it cannot be said that the ground in question is irrelevant as urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. What has been stated in the grounds of detention is that on verification of the register of one Bhagaban Das Modi, it was found that the detenu lifted 7000 litres of kerosene oil. What has been stated in the grounds of detention is that on verification of the register of one Bhagaban Das Modi, it was found that the detenu lifted 7000 litres of kerosene oil. He lifted 3.000 litres on 7-3-1988 and 4.000 litres on 11-3-1988 on behalf of one Mrutyunjaya Rout and said Mrutyunjaya Rout is the brother of the detenu, The detenu also produced the Kerosene Tally Register, stock register and Sale Register in respect of the shop of his brother, but, those registers though indicated that the kerosene was sold to the consumers but actually the kerosene had not been given to the consumers and in tact several persons bad given statements that they had not received any kerosene. Therefore, lifting of kerosene was by the detenu though the same was made by the detenu on behalf of his brother. There has been no sale to the consumers as indicated in the registers. Therefore, the transaction in question is one by the detenu and not by his brother and in that view of the matter it cannot be said that the transaction that was considered is an irrelevant consideration. In our opinion it is a germane consideration on the basis of which the detaining authority rightly came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had been dealing with kerosene in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Accordingly we reject the said contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 10. So far as the last contention is concerned we also do not find any force in the same, inasmuch as it appears from the records of the case that the Government in the Civil Supplies Department placed all materials in relation to the detention of the Petitioner before the Advisory Board on 11-8-1988 and the detention in question being on 4-8-1988 placing of the detenu's Case before the Advisory Board is well within three weeks time stipulated in Section 10 of the Act. We would accordingly reject the said submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 11. All the contentions urged having failed, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. V. Gopalaswamy, J. 12. I agree. 13. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed