JUDGMENT : (PER : K. J. ROHEE, J) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 3. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of detention dated 27.7.2006 passed by the Additional Director General and Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City (respondent no.2). The petitioner also seeks compensation of Rs.10 lacs from the respondents for his alleged illegal detention. 4. According to the petitioner he is a peace loving and law abiding citizen. He is a renowned businessman having social and commercial status. He owns considerable movable and immovable property and is an income tax assessee. He deals with transportation of petroleum products and owns a fleet of tankers. All the tankers of the petitioner are duly licensed for transportation of petroleum products by the concerned Competent Authority. The tankers owned by the petitioners are hired by licensed dealers or authorized representatives of licensed dealers for transporting petroleum products. The petitioner deputes his employees namely drivers and cleaners on the respective tankers. Thus according to the petitioner he has no title over the petroleum products transported by his tankers. 5. During the course of such transportation of petroleum products, offences under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act have been registered at various Police Stations against the petitioner, his drivers, cleaners, the consignor/consignee of the petroleum products. In some of the offences, charge sheets are filed and some offences are still under investigation. The petitioner was also served with a notice of externment under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sitabuldi Division, Nagpur. However, subsequently the said action was dropped. 6. On 6.7.2006 at about 5.30 p.m. the petitioner was arrested from his residence. On the next day i.e. on 7.7.2006 he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur and was remanded to Police Custody till 10.7.2006. On 10.7.2006 further police custody remand was sought. However, it was not granted and the petitioner was remanded to Magisterial custody. The petitioner applied for bail and it was fixed for 11.7.2006 as Police Prosecutor sought time to file reply. 7. According to the petitioner after the petitioner was remanded to magisterial custody, instead of lodging him in Central Prison, the Investigating Agency carried him to the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police-II, Civil Lines, Nagpur (respondent no.3). The petitioner applied for bail and it was fixed for 11.7.2006 as Police Prosecutor sought time to file reply. 7. According to the petitioner after the petitioner was remanded to magisterial custody, instead of lodging him in Central Prison, the Investigating Agency carried him to the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police-II, Civil Lines, Nagpur (respondent no.3). The petitioner was severely beaten by respondent no.3. The petitioner was threatened to be implicated in several false cases. Proceedings under Section 107 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was carried to Central Prison, Nagpur by midnight. The petitioner had shown the injuries on his person to the jail authorities. 8. On 11.7.2006 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur granted bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was released on the next day i.e. on 12.7.2006. Immediately on his release from Central Prison, Nagpur, the petitioner went to Police Station, Sadar (Nagpur) to lodge report about custodial violence. However, he was asked to come later. The petitioner immediately went to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur where he was examined and treated for the injuries. Thereafter on every day he attended Police Station, Sadar but his report was not accepted. On 20.7.2006 the petitioner lodged report to the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City (respondent no.2). Instead of taking action against respondent no.3, some orders passed by respondent no.2 directing that the petitioner be detained , were left at the residence of the petitioner in his absence. On 31.7.2006 the petitioner also received the communication from respondent no.2 that action is initiated on the basis of the report lodged by the petitioner. 9. The petitioner challenged the detention order by preferring Criminal Writ Petition No. 372/2006 in the form of pre-execution challenge. This Court allowed the said writ petition by order dated 17.10.2006 and held that the detention order against the petitioner was passed for a wrong purpose and on that count it was quashed and set aside at pre-execution and pre-arrest stage. The respondents challenged the said order before the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 583/2007. By order dated 3.3.2008 the Supreme Court disposed of the said petition by keeping all the contentions on merit open. 10. After the said order, the petitioner surrendered on 8.4.2008. The respondents challenged the said order before the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 583/2007. By order dated 3.3.2008 the Supreme Court disposed of the said petition by keeping all the contentions on merit open. 10. After the said order, the petitioner surrendered on 8.4.2008. He was served with the order of detention dated 27.7.2006 and the grounds on which the detention order has been made. On 14.4.2008 the petitioner made a representation to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board heard the petitioner on 3.5.2008 and rejected his application on 21.5.2008. On 2.6.2008 the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order of detention dated 27.7.2006 on several grounds as set out in the petition. 11. Respondent no.2 Commissioner of Police, Nagpur submitted return opposing the petition and justifying the order of detention as legal and proper. It was submitted by the respondents that the general public was deprived of kerosene due to black marketing of blue kerosene by the petitioner. According to the respondents the petitioner indulged in black marketing of kerosene (which was meant only for consumption/sale to ration card holders at specified places) by selling it to truck operators at higher rates for gaining pecuniary benefit for himself. Since 2003 the petitioner has been indulging in misuse of petroleum products by way of unauthorized exchange/purchase/sale and thereby committing offences punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. It was submitted by the respondents that on learning about passing of the detention order against him, the petitioner had absconded. Despite consistent efforts by the Police, the petitioner could not be found and hence the copy of the said order was pasted on the door of his residence. The respondents submitted that the special leave petition filed by the State was allowed by the Supreme Court and the order of this Court was set aside by holding that it was not a fit case for quashing the order of detention at pre-execution/pre-arrest stage. The Supreme Court observed that it is open to the Authorities to execute the order of detention and it is equally open to the detenu to challenge the legality thereof on all available grounds. Respondent no.2 submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 12. During the pendency of the present petition, by order dated 23.7.2008 the petitioner was released on temporary bail on 1.8.2008. Respondent no.2 submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 12. During the pendency of the present petition, by order dated 23.7.2008 the petitioner was released on temporary bail on 1.8.2008. By another order dated 27.7.2008 respondent no.2 (Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City) directed the petitioner (i) to maintain good behaviour and not to indulge in any illegal activity, (ii) to furnish solvent surety of Rs.5 lacs in Crime Branch, Nagpur and (iii) to attend the Crime Branch, Nagpur twice in a week i.e. on every Wednesday and Sunday between 11 a.m. and 12 noon for the next three months. 13. We have heard Mr. J.M. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, APP for the respondents. We have also gone through the documents produced by the parties. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of detention is based on four offences. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that after acquiring knowledge of kerosene business and after withdrawing himself from the partnership with his brothers, the petitioner started illegally buying blue kerosene without due permission and illegally selling it to the truck operators who use kerosene as fuel instead of diesel. This illegal activity of diverting blue kerosene to trucks creates scarcity of blue kerosene and affect the supply of kerosene which is an essential commodity. 15. The first offence which is considered by the Detaining Authority is Crime No.3052/2003 under Section 3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act read with Section 2 and 3 of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1995 read with the Kerosene (Restriction On Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1996 by Police Station MIDC, Nagpur. The date of offence was 19.7.2003. The report in the said case shows that on 19.7.2003 on getting information on phone, the District Supply Officer along with his staff went to Shridhar Industries, Hingna and found tanker No. MH-31-9404 standing in the compound. One Raju Govindrao Chakonde (the servant of Shridhar Industries) was also present. On inspecting the tanker it was found that there were four compartments in the tanker and the capacity of each compartment was 3000 litres. There was reddish liquid like kerosene in each compartment which was smelling of kerosene. The tanker bore the name of Gawande Oil. A packet containing reddish colour was also found there. On inspecting the tanker it was found that there were four compartments in the tanker and the capacity of each compartment was 3000 litres. There was reddish liquid like kerosene in each compartment which was smelling of kerosene. The tanker bore the name of Gawande Oil. A packet containing reddish colour was also found there. The inquiry revealed that the reddish powder is mixed with kerosene by the driver and it is sold to truck owners. The tanker and 12000 litres of kerosene was seized in presence of the panchas. The machinery of filling the kerosene from tanker to truck was also seized and on the basis of the report of Sub Inspector, the offence as above was registered as agaisnt Raju Govindrao Chakonde and the petitioner. After investigation charge sheet was filed. Criminal Case No. 570/2004 was registered and the same is pending before the Criminal Court. The grounds of detention show that said prosecution had no impact on the petitioner and he continued his illegal activities. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in the entire FIR actual role of the petitioner is not described. The petitioner was not present at the alleged scene of offence. Secondly the FIR nowhere refers to blue kerosene. It only mentions that the liquid was like kerosene. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no material before the detaining authority for its subjective satisfaction. 17. Another offence is Crime No. 3105/2005 under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act at Police Station MIDC, Nagpur. The FIR shows that on information PI Prajapati of PS MIDC, Nagpur along with the staff and the panchas went near Candico Company where from tanker No. MH-31-M-5637 kerosene was being filled in truck No.CG-04-G- 5438. Another four trucks in which kerosene from the said tanker was filled in were also seized. On the basis of the report lodged by PI Prajapati, offence was registered against the petitioner, his servant, the driver of the tanker as well as the drivers of the trucks. Samples of the fuel liquid were taken from the tanker as well as from the trucks and were forwarded to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur. The Assistant Chemical Analyser reported that the samples contained kerosene. The petitioner and other accused were arrested. However, they were released on bail and the offence is under investigation. 18. Samples of the fuel liquid were taken from the tanker as well as from the trucks and were forwarded to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur. The Assistant Chemical Analyser reported that the samples contained kerosene. The petitioner and other accused were arrested. However, they were released on bail and the offence is under investigation. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even in the second offence the role of the petitioner is not mentioned. The petitioner was not present at the alleged scene of offence. The learned for the petitioner also contended that the provisions of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 is applicable to the said offence. Initially by order dated 14.6.1999 the Government of Maharashtra had authorised all Police Officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to take necessary action under the provisions of the said Order in addition to Revenue Officers. However, by subsequent Order dated 15.2.2000 the Government of Maharashtra deleted the entry authorising all Police Officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and now the position is that no Police Officer is authorised to take action under the provisions of the said Order. In the present offence, Police Inspector conducted the raid, lodged report and registered the offence which is illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the report of Assistant Chemical Analyser does not show that it was a blue kerosene. Thus there was no material before the Detaining Authority for its subjective satisfaction. 19. The third offence is Crime No. 76/2006 under Section 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3, 7 of the Essential Commodities Act at PS Mouda (District Nagpur). The FIR shows that on 3.5.2006 while PSI Khandekar along with the staff was returning to Mouda by jeep after investigation in some other offence, they found tanker No. MH- 31-M-5637 moving on National Highway No.6 near village Marodi in a suspicious manner. When the tanker driver was signaled to stop the tanker, he neglected the signal and tried to run away with the tanker. However, he was chased and stopped. Santosh Ranglal Verma was the tanker driver. The petitioner and one Shafi Ramzan Shaikh were sitting in the cabin. The petitioner told that there was furness oil in the tanker. When the tanker driver was signaled to stop the tanker, he neglected the signal and tried to run away with the tanker. However, he was chased and stopped. Santosh Ranglal Verma was the tanker driver. The petitioner and one Shafi Ramzan Shaikh were sitting in the cabin. The petitioner told that there was furness oil in the tanker. However, when the goods in the tanker were examined, it was found that the tanker was divided in four compartments and the contents of each compartment were smelling of kerosene. In compartment no.1, blue kerosene was found and in the rest 3 compartments black colour liquid smelling kerosene was found. Total 18000 litres of kerosene costing Rs.2,70,000/- along with the tanker was seized. Samples were collected and the same were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur. The report of Chemical Analyser is awaited. However, the charge sheet is filed before the CJM, Nagpur. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the raid was conducted, the report was lodged and the offence was registered by PSI who is not authorised to take action under the provisions of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998. Thus there was no material before the Detaining Authority for its subjective satisfaction. 21. The fourth offence is Crime No.3022 of 2006 under Section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act at PS Wadi (Nagpur). On 6.7.2006 PSI Ghotekar along with the staff was patrolling. They received information that blue kerosene was being carried for black marketing. Tanker No. MH-31-9351 coming from Nagpur and going towards Amravati was inspected. When the said tanker was tried to be stopped, the tanker driver tried to run away with the tanker. The tanker was chased and was stopped at some distance. Abdul Subhan s/o Abdul Wahab was the tanker driver. Nijamuddin @ Mullu Ansari was another person sitting in the cabin. The tanker driver informed that on the instructions of the owner (namely the petitioner), blue kerosene was being taken by the tanker. 12000 litres of blue kerosene was found in the tanker and powder for changing the colour of blue kerosene was also found. The sample of blue colour liquid from each compartment so also the sample of orange colour powder and silver colour powder was taken. 12000 litres of blue kerosene was found in the tanker and powder for changing the colour of blue kerosene was also found. The sample of blue colour liquid from each compartment so also the sample of orange colour powder and silver colour powder was taken. The samples were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpur and the report is awaited. The petitioner and others were arrested and subsequently were released on bail. The offence is under investigation. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the fourth raid as well, the report was by PSI who is not authorised to investigate under the provisions of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998. The report of Chemical Analyser is also not received. Thus there was no material before the Detaining Authority for its subjective satisfaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless it is established that the contents of the tanker were blue kerosene, the petitioner cannot be detained for black marketing in blue kerosene. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Hiralal Kewat .vs. the State of Maharashtra and another . 1983 (1) Bom. C.R. 569 ( C). In our view the said case would not be applicable to the present case because in Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 cement is defined and the report of Chemical Analyser was silent about the contents of the sample. However, in the present case, blue kerosene is nowhere defined and at least in one of the offences blue kerosene was actually seized. As such it cannot be said that the liquid which was being carried through tankers was not the blue kerosene supplied under Public Distribution System. Hence the petitioner cannot derive any advantage from the said ruling and it cannot be said that there was no material before the detaining authority to arrive at its subjective satisfaction. 23. The plea that the Police Officers who conducted raids, lodged reports and registered offences were not empowered to do so also cannot be availed by the petitioner to say that there was no material before the Detaining Authority for its subjective satisfaction. 23. The plea that the Police Officers who conducted raids, lodged reports and registered offences were not empowered to do so also cannot be availed by the petitioner to say that there was no material before the Detaining Authority for its subjective satisfaction. The petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned Magistrate for vitiating the offences or charge sheets on this ground, but it cannot be said that there was no material before the Detaining Authority for its subjective satisfaction. 24. It was further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no material to show that the petitioner is the owner of the goods seized from his tankers. The petitioner is the owner of the tankers only and he has no title to the goods therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that no action has been taken against the owners of the goods found in the tanker. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no member of the community ever complained about non-supply of blue kerosene from Public Distribution System. He further submitted that nobody ever complained that the petitioner sold blue kerosene at higher rates. Thus there is no evidence that the petitioner is involved in black marketing of blue kerosene. Reliance was placed on : (i) Biram Chand .vs. State of U.P. AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1161 (ii) Dalpatbhai Bhikhabhai Patel .vs. The District Magistrate,Surat Cr.L.R . (Gujrat) 1983 Page 193 (iii) Anant .vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1987 Supreme Court 137 to contend that if there was sufficient material to prosecute the petitioner, the order of detention should not have been passed against him. 25. It is true that it is not alleged that any member of the community ever complained about non-supply of blue kerosene from Public Distribution System. It is also true that there is no complaint that the petitioner has sold blue kerosene at higher rates. However, one fact is certain that the tankers containing kerosene are owned by the petitioner and the petitioner is a transporter. It may be noticed that in each incident the tanker owned by the petitioner was involved, so also the drivers of the tankers were admittedly the servants of the petitioner. At least in one case the petitioner himself was sitting in the tanker. It may be noticed that in each incident the tanker owned by the petitioner was involved, so also the drivers of the tankers were admittedly the servants of the petitioner. At least in one case the petitioner himself was sitting in the tanker. As a transporter the petitioner was bound to know what were the contents of the tanker, from where they were obtained and to whom they were to be delivered. However, the petitioner failed to explain these things. Clause 3(2) of the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 prohibits a dealer or a transporter to sell, distribute or supply kerosene under the Public Distribution System to any person other than the person to whom the supplies are meant for. So the transporter cannot be absolved from the liability of supplying kerosene to the authorised persons only. If the transporter (the petitioner) was selling or distributing or supplying blue kerosene to unauthorised person, he is certainly liable for breach of Clause 3 (2) of the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993. Hence no fault can be found with the Detaining Authority if it has taken into consideration these offences for arriving at its subjective satisfaction. 26. The grounds of detention show that the petitioner continued his illegal activities of misusing blue kerosene and it is very difficult to deal with him under the ordinary law of the land as the same has not been enough to stop his illegal activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities to the community. As such in the present case even if in two cases out of four charge sheets are filed, it won't render the order of detention illegal and the petitioner is not able to derive advantage from the rulings relied on by him. 27. The fact that there has been no complaint by any member of the community about non-supply of blue kerosene from Public Distribution System or complaint by anybody against the petitioner that he sold blue kerosene at higher rates would not indicate that the activities of the petitioner in transporting kerosene are not prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities to the community so as to make an order under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act,1980. Thus we find no force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that there was no material before the Detaining Authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction. 28. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after police custody remand was rejected in Crime No. 3022/2006 of PS Wadi, Nagpur and his application for grant of bail was kept pending, instead of lodging him in Central Prison, Nagpur, he was carried to the office of R-3 (Deputy Commissioner of Police-II) who severely beat the petitioner by removing the clothes of the petitioner and injured the petitioner. The petitioner was carried to Central Prison, Nagpur in the midnight where the petitioner had shown the injuries on his left hand and body to the jail authorities. After his release on bail, the petitioner tried to lodge report against R-3, but it was ignored and instead the order of detention was passed against him to deter him from proceeding against R-3. It was submitted that on this ground also the detention order suffers from illegality and needs to be quashed. 29. In this respect the respondents have produced the communication dated 14.8.2006 made by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes) Nagpur City , which shows that when the petitioner was lodged in jail he did not complain of beating and injury to him at any point of time. On routine check up by Medical Officer, no serious injury was found on the person of the petitioner. It is thus apparent that the petitioner tried to make false allegations against R-3 as a counter blast to save himself from Crime No. 3022/2006 of PS Wadi, Nagpur. 30. On careful consideration, we find that the grounds given by the Detaining Authority in support of the detention of the petitioner are neither vague nor irrelevant, stale or nonexistent. We also find that the Detaining Authority has not exercised its powers dishonestly or for improper purpose. We find that the Detaining Authority has applied its mind to pertinent and proximate matters. We, therefore, uphold the detention order and pass the following order: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. The petitioner to surrender immediately.