MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is detained under the provisions of the Prevention of blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (the Act for short) has brought in challenge the order of his detention as passed by the District Magistrate, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar on 19-11- 1990 and as approved by the State of Gujarat under the Act, on diverse grounds. The order is passed against the detenu who was having a licence as a retail dealer in Kerosene and Crude at village Adpodra in Himatnagar Taluka of sabarkantha District. The impugned order recites that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance or supplies of commodity essential to the community, it was necessary to detain him. The aforesaid order of detention has been brought in challangc on diverse grounds. However, one ground was submitted in the forefront at the time of final hearing of this petition. The said ground has been highlighted in paras (h) and (i) of the petition. It is stated therein that only 5 days after the order of detention of the petitioner, i. e. , on 24-11-1990, the petitioner was released on parole by the State Govt. by exercising power under Sec. 15 of the Act. That since then, the petitioner was continuously remaining out of detention for about 22 days. That looking to the fact that since the petitioner was released by the State Govt. after five days of the date of order, continuously for 22 days, the whole purpose of detaining the petitioner is frustrated as by indiscreetly exercising power under Sec. 15, the Govt. has nullified the order of detention. In para (i), it has been averred that the detaining authority thought it fit not to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner so as to prevent the petitioner from indulging into blackmarketing activities only on the ground that the petitioner may get himself released on bail and continue the prejudicial activities. That on the one hand, the detaining authority thought it fit to prevent the petitioner by invoking such a harsh measure like detention under the Act and on the other, the State Government only after 5 days, released the petitioner on parole continuously for 22 days. That on the one hand, the detaining authority thought it fit to prevent the petitioner by invoking such a harsh measure like detention under the Act and on the other, the State Government only after 5 days, released the petitioner on parole continuously for 22 days. This clearly discloses that the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not genuine and bona fide. At the same time, the satisfaction arrived at by the State Govt. while approving the order of detention was also not genuine and in that view of the matter, the continuous detention of the petitioner has become illegal. ( 2 ) SO far as this contention is concerned, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. N. L. Bhatt, Under Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, gandhinagar. In para 7 of the said affidavit, it has been pointed out that the order of detention was passed against the petitioner on 19-11-1990 and accordingly, he was detained under the said order, but immediately, thereafter, the petitioners wife approached the State Government for release of the petitioner on parole, as she was admitted in Shri Sapana Surgical Hospital, himatnagar and a certificate was issued by Dr. D. M. Patel to that effect. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was granted parole for 7 days by an order dated 23-11-1990, i. e. , from 24-11-1990 to 1-12-1990. That before the said parole could expire, an application was moved by the petitioners son on 30-11-1990 wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner was admitted in General Hospital, Himatnagar on 30-11-1990 as an indoor patient and therefore, 15 days parole was asked for. That the authorities, after careful consideration of the same, granted parole for 3 days by an order dated 1- 12-1990 for the period commencing from 2-12-1990 to 4-12-1990. Again, an application dated 4-12-1990 was received from his son seeking parole for 10 days on account of the continued treatment of the petitioner in General Hospital, himatnagar. By an order dated 6-12-1990, 5 days parole was granted, i. e. , from 5-12-1990 to 9-12-1990. During this period, the petitioner was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad on 7-12-1990. Thereafter, an application dated 10-12-1990 made by the wife of the petitioner was received and a parole for 15 days was prayed for. By an order dated 6-12-1990, 5 days parole was granted, i. e. , from 5-12-1990 to 9-12-1990. During this period, the petitioner was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad on 7-12-1990. Thereafter, an application dated 10-12-1990 made by the wife of the petitioner was received and a parole for 15 days was prayed for. That after taking into consideration the certificate issued by the Resident Medical Officer, Class I, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, parole for 5 days was granted by order dated 13-12-1990 for the period from 10-12-1990 to 14-12-1990 and thereafter, the petitioner surrendered on 15- 12-1990. Thereafter, the petitioner again made an application dated 4-1-1991 on the ground of his own illness which was refused by the authorities. Thereafter a parole application was made by his son and by order dated 11-1-1991, 3 days parole was granted from 13-1-1991 to 15-1-1991. The petitioner surrendered on 16-1-1991. Subsequent application by the petitioners son dated 23-1-1991 for parole on the ground of Republic Day was refused. Thereafter, another application was moved on 29-1-1991 for parole for 15 days on account of marriage ceremony of the niece of the petitioner which was considered and by an order dated 31-1-1991, 7 days parole was granted from 2-2-1991 to 8-2-1991. The petitioner surrendered on 9-2-1991 by subsequent application dated 11-2-1991 by the detenu for parole for 5 days on account of Maha shivratri was refused. ( 3 ) IT was submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents that the State authorities are entitled to act under Sec. 15 of the Act and can grant parole in suitable cases on relevant facts and grounds. But that would not affect that efficacy of detention order or continued need to detain the detenu under the Act. It was submitted that as the appropriate Govt. was satisfied that parole on various occasions was required to be granted to the petitioner and in all 30 days parole was granted and even on three occasions, parole applications were rejected. Consequently, it cannot be said that powers under Sec. 15 have been exercised in any illegal or oblique manner or that the subjective satisfaction underlying the order of preventive detention or its approval by the State authorities has got vitiated. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate these rival contentions, we had requested the learned Addl. Consequently, it cannot be said that powers under Sec. 15 have been exercised in any illegal or oblique manner or that the subjective satisfaction underlying the order of preventive detention or its approval by the State authorities has got vitiated. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate these rival contentions, we had requested the learned Addl. P. P. who appeared for the respondents to make available the relevant file showing how various applications under Sec. 15 moved by the detenus wife, son or detenu himself had been dealt with from time to time by the appropriate Government. A close scrutiny of these relevant applications on file revealed a very startling situation. It has to be noted that the petitioner was detained on 19-11-1990 on the ground that it was absolutely necessary to put him out of harms way as be was alleged to have indulged in blackmarkcting of kerosene which was essential commodity and he was alleged to have diverted the stock from the channel meant for distribution of kerosene to the needy customers, to unauthorised quarters under fictitious and bogus bills. The grounds of detention themselves indicate that the situation was so urgent that it was not feasible to deal with the detenu under ordinary law and even if criminal proceedings were initiated against him, he was likely to be released on bail and was likely to resume his illegal and unauthorised activities and, therefore, there was imminent need to detain him by way of preventive detention under the Act so that, as laid down by the Act, be can be kept out of harms way. It is pertinent to note that maximum period of detention permissible under Sec. 13 thereof is six months from the date of detention. Thus, the grounds of detention as formulated by the District magistrate who is the detaining authority, clearly show that there was imminent need to keep the detenu out of harms way atleast for six months which is the maximum period of detention. After the detenu was taken under detention pursuant to the aforesaid order, the order had got to be approved by the State Government in exercise of its power under Sec. 3 (3) which lays down that :"when any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-sec. After the detenu was taken under detention pursuant to the aforesaid order, the order had got to be approved by the State Government in exercise of its power under Sec. 3 (3) which lays down that :"when any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-sec. (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government. "it is not in dispute between the parties that the impugned order of detention was approved by the State Government on 28-11-1990, i. e. , within nine days of the passing of the order by the detaining authority. But in the meantime, within two days, an application was moved on 21-11-1990 by the detenus wife Jasudben Shah. The said application addressed to the minister for Civil Supplies, Gandhinagar, stated that her husband was detained under the Act on 19-11-1990. That she was a patient of heart attack and was suffering from appendicitis. That on 20-11-1990, she developed acute pain of appendicitis and her neighbours had got her admitted to the hospital of dr. Dahyabhai M. Patel who was running Shri Sapna Surgical Hospital at himatnagar and she was advised immediate operation. As it was not possible to get it done in the absence of her husband, she requested to grant parole to the petitioner. A certificate to this effect given by Dr. Dahyabhai M. Patel was annexed to the said application. The certificate is dated 21-11-1990. It is on the letter-head of Shri Sapna Surgical Hospital and it stated that Jasudben rasiklal Shah was admitted in his hospital on 20-11-1990. She was suffering from acute appendicitis and she was advised to be operated urgently. ( 5 ) IT is revealed from the file that this certificate which does not bear the signature or thumb impression of the patient, has been straightway accepted by the appropriate authority and 7 days parole was granted by an order dated 23-11-1990. She was suffering from acute appendicitis and she was advised to be operated urgently. ( 5 ) IT is revealed from the file that this certificate which does not bear the signature or thumb impression of the patient, has been straightway accepted by the appropriate authority and 7 days parole was granted by an order dated 23-11-1990. It is interesting to note that even before approving the detention order, the aforesaid parole was granted and while granting the parole, no effort was made to obtain opinion of the detaining authority. No effort seems to have been made to find out whether the certificate was genuine or whether the concerned patient was really suffering from the ailment as stated in the certificate. No effort seems to have been made to even contact the Doctor with a view to finding out whether he has issued the certificate to the concerned patient. This shows a totally callous or cavalier approach on the part of the concerned authorities. It is obvious that when the detaining authority vide his order dated 19-11-1990 thought it fit to detain the detenu on the ground of imminent need to remove the detenu from the harms way and when resort to regular criminal proceedings was not had as he was likely to be released on bail and continue such illegal activities, before again setting the petitioner at liberty for a limited purpose under the parole order, proper care ought to have been taken whether any pretext was put forward on the ground of the alleged sickness of his wife. No effort seems to have been made and almost mechanical and automatic parole seems to have been granted by an order dated 23-11-1990. If in matters of such gross nature where the concerned detenus are alleged to have interfered with the essential supplies of commodities with the result that the society would suffer and get deprived of these essential commodities and they would get diverted to illegal channels and when orders are passed by the concerned authorities on the spot who arc in know of the facts and circumstances, the powers under Sec. 15 of the Act are exercised in such a careless manner, the very purpose of enacting the provisions would get frustrated. It is pertinent to note that when the appropriates authority itself, after four days, thought it fit to approve the order, it could not have in such a careless manner automatically granted parole to the detenu relying only upon the certificate of Shri Sapna Surgical Hospital, himatnagar without making any further inquiry. In this connection, it will be profitable to have a look at the decision of a Division Bench where one of us (K. J. Vaidya, J.) was a party. In Misc. Criminal Application No. 2503 of 1990 (Ala Ramji v. State of gujarat reported in 1991 (2) GLR 722 ) in Special Criminal Application No. 1302 of 1990, the Division Bench vide its decision dated 12/09/1990 considered the question as to how medical certificate produced by the concerned applicant for being released on parole should be considered by the appropriate authorities and what care should be taken before such certificates are relied upon. The following pertinent observations were made in that connection (at page No. 724 of GLR) :"it is no doubt true that Medical Certificate at Annexuie a of this application does mention the sickness of the wife of the petitioner-convict and is advised hysterectomy operation. It is equally true that the said Certificate is issued on the letter head duly signed by Dr. N. N. Bhadarka. It is further true that Dr. N. N. Bhadarka being M. D. (Gynac) appears to be duly qualified Doctor and therefore competent to issue such Certificate. But then all these, in our opinion, standing by themselves are not sufficient to establish the correct identity of Smt. Kuverben, wife of the petitioner-convict as a person in respect of whom the said Certificate is issued. . . . . . What we say is that the Certificate desires much to be mentioned in it by way of identification mark of Smt. Kuverben so as to inspire our prima facie confidence regarding its genuineness. Such Medical Certificate in absence of proper identification mark of so named sick person in it is absolutely meaningless. No Court or any authority should take upon itself the risk of accepting and relying upon such defective Medical Certificate till the time it is duly verified and found to be correct. Granting of a Medical Certificate by the Doctor is an act of serious responsibility. No Court or any authority should take upon itself the risk of accepting and relying upon such defective Medical Certificate till the time it is duly verified and found to be correct. Granting of a Medical Certificate by the Doctor is an act of serious responsibility. In fact, in Modis text book of medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology aveiy important instluction has been imparted to Doctor while issuing the Medical Certificate. According to Dr. Modi"these are the simplest forms of documentary evidence and generally refer to i. l health, soundness of mind, death etc These Certificate should not be given lightly or carelessly, but with a due sense of responsibility for the opinion expressed in them. They are not accepted in a Court of law unless they are granted by a duly qualified Medical practitioner who is registered under the State Medical Council Act. In giving a Certificate of ill health, a Medical practitioner should mention the exact nature of the illness and preferably should take, at the bottom of the Certificate, the thumb mark impression or signature of the individual to whom it refers. Dr. Modi has also prescribed a specimen form of such Medical certificate in Appendix II of the said book. The said form reads as under: this is to certify that Mr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aged about. . . . . . years, bearing following identification marks has been examined by me this day and 1 find that he is suffering from. . . . . . He is advised to take rest fora period of. . . . . . Identification 1. marks. 2. Place : Signature and Reg. No. Date : of the Doctor. Further, in order to be still little more exact regarding the identity of the sick person in whose respect the Medical Certificate is to be issued, a photo of such sick person duly signed by the Doctor can be insisted upon, (of course it is for the authorities concerned to decide by framing the necessary rule regarding the same ). The idea is that at any cost, the rot that has entered in submitting bogus Certificates must be checked. . . . . . 1992 (1) RASIKLAL N. SHAH v. DIST. MAGISTRATE (Spl. Cri. The idea is that at any cost, the rot that has entered in submitting bogus Certificates must be checked. . . . . . 1992 (1) RASIKLAL N. SHAH v. DIST. MAGISTRATE (Spl. Cri. A.)-Majmudar, J. 471 in our opinion, the Medical Certificate in order to command even the prima facie credibility, must comply with the aforesaid instructions of Dr. Modi. After passing the above prima facie credibility test, the Medical Certificate has still one more reliability test to undergo before it can be safely accepted and relied upon. Accordingly whenever any Medical Certificate is produced to press in service for obtaining orders in matters of parole leave or bail, the proper officer has to make further inquiry by contacting the Doctor concerned who is stated to have issued the Medical certificate in question. The concerned Doctor should be asked (i) whether the Certificate in question has been issued to him, (ii) whether he can identify the person in whose favour such certificate was issued. Despite these questions and answers, if some lingering doubts about the truth fulness of the Certificate still persists, then the inquiry officer should not feel helpless to ask the Doctor (i) to show the indoor patient register, (ii) the counterfoils of fees receipt and/or any other medical service charges, and/or advance hospitalisation charges etc. (iii) the treatment chart of the person concerned maintained in the Hospital, (iv) and if the inquiry is made immediately, to see whether the sick person so named in the Certificate is actually present in the Hospital, (v) the last but not the least, to personally see such sick person, record his statement, ask for the medicines prescription given by the Doctor and the bills regarding the medicines he purchased etc. It is this final report on the basis of which such Medical Certificate can either be accepted or rejected. Such inquiries should be prompt and at the D. S. P. level so that other side does not frustrate the same by doing the needful. It is this final report on the basis of which such Medical Certificate can either be accepted or rejected. Such inquiries should be prompt and at the D. S. P. level so that other side does not frustrate the same by doing the needful. The reason behind verification and counter-checking of the Medical Certificate is, these days all possibilities of same being false, forged and fabricated cannot be ruled out, and the reason for indepth inquiry on the lines suggested above, is that any slackness in lightly accepting the Medical Certificate is fraught with grave danger particularly in cases where the same is produced in support of parole leave or bail application. Any slackness in duty and viyilenue in the matter has all the potentialities to play with the life, law and order to the society. "in our view, the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court for proper scrutiny of Medical Certificate supporting parole applications at the end of the concerned authorities would ipso facto apply in cases where such detenus under the preventive detention laws seek assistance of the appropriate authority for being released on parole under the provisions like Sec. 15 of the present Act. In the present case, no such care appears to have been taken by the respondent-State while exercising power under sec. 15. Consequently, by the time the order was approved, the appropriate authority appears to have been in double mind. On the one hand, it felt that there was imminent need to detain the detenu otherwise it would have never approved the detention order beyond 12 days from the date on which it was passed by the District Magistrate and on the other hand, it by itself granted four days parole to the detenu on the ground that his wife was sick. Consequently, the approval of the order itself becomes of dubious nature and the subjective satisfaction underlying it would get vitiated. This would have put an end to the present proceedings. But the subsequent history of incarceration of the detenu and how he was further released for temporary periods in exercise of powers under Sec. 15 of the Act, also makes an interesting reading and we will, therefore, briefly refer to the same. This would have put an end to the present proceedings. But the subsequent history of incarceration of the detenu and how he was further released for temporary periods in exercise of powers under Sec. 15 of the Act, also makes an interesting reading and we will, therefore, briefly refer to the same. Before the period of first parole could expire, the detenu appears to have got himself admitted in Himatnagar Hospital on the ground of his personal ailment of hypertension and heart trouble. An application was moved by his son on 30-11-1990 supported by printed certificate issued under the signature and rubber stamp of Registrar, general Hospital at Himatnagar, filled up the gaps in the printed certificate showing that the detenu was admitted as an indoor patient on 30-11-1990 ami was under treatment. The nature of the ailment which is tried to be mentioned in ink is not clearly decipherable. However, the learned Advocate for the respondents stated that it showed that the detenu was suffering from hypertension and heart problem. Be that as it may, the sequence in which this certificate was issued itself required a close scrutiny. As the earlier parole was granted on the ground of wifes sickness, before that period could expire, detenus sickness was put forward as a ground for extension of parole. When this application reached the State authorities, they seem to have automatically granted three more days parole by an order dated 1-12-1990. Before that period could expire, the Under Secretary to Govt. by his telegram dated 3-12-1990 which is communicated to the Collector, requested him to inquire about the correctness of the cause mentioned and report the facts to the authority, alongwith his opinion whether it was advisable or not to grant parole to the detenu in public interest. In the meantime, the detenu seems to have got admitted in the Civil hospital at Ahmedabad and on 4-12-1990, an application was moved by his son requesting for extension of parole on the ground of fathers sickness. It appears that on 6-12-1990, the parole period was extended by five days. In the meantime, the detenu seems to have got admitted in the Civil hospital at Ahmedabad and on 4-12-1990, an application was moved by his son requesting for extension of parole on the ground of fathers sickness. It appears that on 6-12-1990, the parole period was extended by five days. In the meantime, by a communication dated 6-12-1990, the District Supply Officer, himatnagar under instructions of the Collector, who was the original detaining authority, informed the Under Secretary of the Civil Supplies Department, gandhinagar in connection with the telegram dated 3-12-1990 that the detenu was admitted as an indoor patient in the Civil Hospital on 4-12-1990 on account of pain in chest but the Hospital could not give any information regarding the said ailment and the entire story about sickness of the detenu appeared to be got-up and with a view to avoiding detention under the order and if such detenu was kept out, the blackmarketing activities of his will get a fillip and hence, the parole of the detenu must be cancelled with immediate effect and he should be taken in detention. This communication from the District supply Officer seems to have been received by the Under Secretary Mr. M. L. Bhatt at Gandhinagar on 7-12-1990. On that very day, Mr. Bhatt seems to have issued an expressed telegram to the Collector, Sabarkantha seeking clarification from him whether the said letter dated 6-12-1990 was approved by him (the Collector) or not. By a communication dated Nil of December 1990 which reached Mr. Bhatt on 10-12-1990, the District Magistrate wrote to Mr. Bhatt that the letter dated 6-12-1990 written by the district Supply Officer was written by him after getting approval from him (the Collector), meaning thereby, he endorsed the contents of the said letter wholehog. Inspite of the said communication from The Collector clearly stating to the State authorities that the detenu seems to be putting forward mere excuses to avoid detention and that there was imminent need to cancel his parole order, the State authorities granted further parole of five days by an order dated 13-12-1990. Inspite of the said communication from The Collector clearly stating to the State authorities that the detenu seems to be putting forward mere excuses to avoid detention and that there was imminent need to cancel his parole order, the State authorities granted further parole of five days by an order dated 13-12-1990. It appears, therefore, clear that despite what the detaining authority mentioned in connection with the alleged sickness of the detenu and despite his clear communication that it was an excuse and that Himatnagar Civil Hospital could not give any details about the nature of ailment and it appears to be an excuse, the State authorities in its discretion and wisdom went on extending the period of parole for ununderstandable reasons. This, to say the least, shows total cavalier approach and an approach which is not germane to the Act but was totally de hors it. The result is that the subjective satisfaction underlying the order of approval of such detention order gets vitiated as it does not remain a genuine subjective satisfaction about the imminent need to detain the detenu. We make it clear that in genuine cases, the State authority is certainly entitled to exercise its powers under Sec. 15, but that exercise must be in the real spirit contemplated by Sec. 15 and in genuine cases. However, if for fictitious reasons as is borne out from the record of the case and almost automatically, such paroles are granted and/or extended, such an exercise would be for collateral purposes and a totally impermissible exercise under Sec. 15 and consequently, the subjective satisfaction underlying the order of approval of such detention order would get vitiated. It is further interesting to note that in the present case. after the detenu surrendered, again he was given three days parole in January 1991 on account of MAKAR sankranti festival as by that time, he appeared to have given up his alleged heart illness and was fit enough to participate in kite flying festival which would require his presence en the roof top. ( 6 ) ALL these facts of the case make a very sad reading and betray total callousness on the part of the authorities exercising powers under Sec. 15 of the Act. ( 6 ) ALL these facts of the case make a very sad reading and betray total callousness on the part of the authorities exercising powers under Sec. 15 of the Act. Under circumstances, we have got to reach an inevitable conclusion that the approval of the detention order on 28-11-1990 suffers from total non-application of mind and was not a genuine approval and the subjective satisfaction underlying the same was merely an eye wash. That the authorities appeared to have been convinced, looking to the credentials of the detenu, de hors what was stated by the District Magistrate who was the man on spot and who clearly opined that he did not deserve to be released on parole, that this detenu was required to be enlarged on parole from time to time. Consequently it must be held that in view of the State authorities, the detenu was not an undesirable person who should be kept out of harms way for the full statutory period of six months from the date of his detention. In such circumstances, the continued detention would become vitiated. This view of ours is supported by a series of decisions of this Court. We may only refer to two such decisions (Baldevbhai Motibhal v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , 1990 (1)GLH 469 : [ 1990 (1) GLR 129 ] and Girishbhai B. Patel v. State of Gujarat, [1990 (1)] XXXI (1) GLR 543 ). In those cases, where after the orders under the Act, the detenus were released by the State authorities in exercise of the power under Sec. 15 from time to time for a total period of 100 days in one case and 104 days in other case, this Court came to the conclusion that the subjective satisfaction underlying the orders of continued detention of the detenu got vitiated. Mr. Tripathi for the respondents tried to salvage the situation by submitting that in the present case, only 30 days parole in all was granted. This is neither here nor there. In a genuine case, appropriate parole can be granted in bona fide exercise of powers under Sec. 15 of the Act. But if parole is granted for non-existing grounds and for purposes de hors the provisions of the Act, then even five days parole would be bad. This is neither here nor there. In a genuine case, appropriate parole can be granted in bona fide exercise of powers under Sec. 15 of the Act. But if parole is granted for non-existing grounds and for purposes de hors the provisions of the Act, then even five days parole would be bad. Consequently, only because 30 days parole in all is granted in the present case, the same cannot revitalise the otherwise still born subjective satisfaction underlying the approval of the State authority. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, therefore, we are constrained to allow this petition although the original detaining authority is found to have been justified in ordering the preventive detention of the detenu and even though he was insisting that the detenu should not be released on parole on grounds which were found to be absolutely fake. ( 8 ) WHILE parting, it may be stated that we would be just failing in our duty if we do not deprecate the callous and indiscreet manner in which the concerned authority has misused the power under Sec. 15 of the Act while temporarily releasing the detenu on parole. In fact, the record reflects a very cursory treatment of the extraordinary but socially beneficial legislation like the Blackmarketing Act, 1980 by an unwarranted liberty taken by no lesser an authority than the executive which is expected to enforce the law. It cannot be forgotten that the blackmarketing activities arc while colour offences and are carried out quite ingeniously and clandestinely and arc difficult to be easily detected. Under the circumstances, to release the suspect of notorious social activities like blackmarketing, quite freely and frequently on mere asking for a long duration without any vigil or surveillance over such detenu and that too against the objection from the detaining authority is not only demoralising to the said authority, but the same can as well frustrate the very purpose for which the detention order came to be passed. Not only that but such frequent temporary release on parole and that too without due care and circumspection blunts out the impact and efficacy of the deterrent potentiality, the same also lowers the esteem of the detention law. Not only that but such frequent temporary release on parole and that too without due care and circumspection blunts out the impact and efficacy of the deterrent potentiality, the same also lowers the esteem of the detention law. If under Sec. 16 of the Act, for any action taken in good faith, the authorities can be protected, some similar sort of provisions are also required to be made in the statute in the over all interest of the society as well as for the larger public interest for whose interest and benefit such statutes came to be enacted, which can check and control the misuse and abuse of the power by the authorities as has been done in the instant case. Unless some sort of personal accountability in the matter of abuse and misuse of powers is incorporated in the statute, the statute itself as well as the liberty of innocent citizen and the over all public interest would get victimised at the alter of whims, caprice and abuse of the powers. In order to sec that the law is not diverted of its aim of fulfilling its objective of social justice and is not misdirected in the direction of abuse and misuse of power, some reasonable safeguards are required to be incorporated in the statute itself. We do not for a moment suggest that the detenu cannot be temporarily released on parole in genuine cases. What we say is that such powers are to be sparingly and most judiciously exercised as far as possible for some hours, or for a day or few days as the case may be, depending upon the need and urgency of the situation and that too under the active surveillance of the vigilant officers. Taking into consideration the anxiety of the legislation in passing such an extraordinary statute, where the liberty of the citizen can be curtailed even without trial, the seriousness cannot be afforded to be lost sight of by the executive by permitting it to indulge into free-lance dolling out of the parole. The reason is that under no circumstances, the object for which the detenu came to be detained should be laid low under some devices of the detenu resulting into greater disadvantage to the public interest. .