JUDGMENT : ILESH J. VORA, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner – Kanubhai Revjibhai Rathva has challenged the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the respondent – District Magistrate, Panchmahal directing him to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of the Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “the PBM Act of 1980” for short). 2. The said order has been passed in purported exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub- clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. 3. Brief facts giving rise to file the petition are that, the applicant detenue is the fair price shop owner having licence to do business in the essential commodities, allegedly granted by the State Government. The place of the business is at Ranipura, Tal.: Ghogambha, Dist.: Panchmahal. On 25.11.2023, the surprise inspection was carried out by the District Supply Officer. During the inspection, it was noticed that, as per the supply of the State Government, the stock was not tallied with the online data. There was huge deficiency in the stock of multiple grains as without maintaining proper stock register, the deficit stock of multiple grains were sold in open market for personal gains. In such circumstances, the sponsoring authority proposed to detain the applicant under the Act of PBM of 1980 to prevent him in acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. 4. In the aforesaid set of circumstances, by exercising powers under Section 3(1) of the PBM Act of 1980, the District Magistrate, Panchmahal passed detention order dated 22.02.2024 and the same was executed upon the applicant. At the time of execution, the grounds for the detention along with the material relied by the authority concerned has been provided to the detenue. 5. The present petition is directed against the order of the detention. 6. We have heard learned counsel Mr.A.Y. Charkha for the applicant and Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent – State. 7. At the time of execution, the grounds for the detention along with the material relied by the authority concerned has been provided to the detenue. 5. The present petition is directed against the order of the detention. 6. We have heard learned counsel Mr.A.Y. Charkha for the applicant and Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the respondent – State. 7. Mr.Charkha, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the applicant detenue, made the following submissions: (A) That there is a delay in passing the order of detention, which is evident from the order of the detention itself as the same was passed on 22.02.2024, whereas the surprise inspection was undertaken on 25.11.2023. That in absence of any complaint in the interregnum, the conclusion of the detaining authority that it was necessary to detain the applicant with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance to the supplies of the commodities essential to the community has no rationality and there is no material placed before the authority to show that applicant would indulge in future in such kind of activities and therefore, while passing the order, the authority did not apply its mind and in a mechanical manner, without any material, the order was passed. 8. In view of the aforementioned submissions, learned counsel Mr.Charkha would submit that, the detention order is passed to punish the applicant herein and in absence of any material, the subjectie satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority would show that the order impugned has been passed in a mechanical manner and the same is required to be quahed and set aside. 9. 9. On the other hand, opposing the application, learned State Counsel Mr.L.B. Dabhi would urge that during the inspection, huge deficiency in the stock of the essential commodities was noticed by the authority and at the end of the inquiry, it was found that the applicant sold the deficit stock of foodgrains in the open market for its personal gains, whereby he has committed the offence of Essential Commodities Act, and applicable control order and the said activity would directly bearing on the supply of essential commodities and therefore, considering the material placed before the detaining authority, he was satisfied that with a view to preventing the applicant from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community, it is necessary to detain him. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the issue falls for our consideration is as to whether the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Panchmahal in exercise of his power under the provisions of the PBM Act, 1980 is sustainable in law? 11. Before adverting to the submissions, we may refer to Section 3 of the Act, which authorized the authority to pass an order of detention. Section 3 reads as under: 3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.— (1) The Central Government or a State Government or any officer of the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, or any officer of a State Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Explanation.—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 (10 of 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 (10 of 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 Act or other law aforesaid. (2) Any of the following officers, namely:— (a) district magistrates; (b) Commissioners of Police, wherever they have been appointed, may also if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub- section. (3) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (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: Provided that where under section 8 the grounds of detention are communicated by the authority making the order after five days but not later than ten days from the date of detention, this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that for the words “twelve days”, the words “fifteen days” shall be substituted. (4) When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section or when any order is made under this section by an officer of the State Government not below the rank of Secretary to that Government specially empowered under sub-section (1) the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact 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. 12. In light of the statutory provision and considering the grounds for detention, we may first examine the principal argument that there was a delay in passing the detention order and same vitiates the detention itself. In the facts of the present case, the authority noticed the irregularities in the stock of the food grains in the month of November-2023. The order impugned came to be passed on 22.02.2024. In the aforesaid admitted facts, it is evident that since 22.02.2024, the authorities were knowing the alleged mal-practise as well as antisocial activities affecting the supply of the commodities and despite of these facts, the authority did not initiate any proceedings and set silent and waited for about 63 days. In short, there is a delay in passing the order. On the issue of delay in passing the detention order, the Supreme Court in case of Saeed Zakirhussain Malik Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 223, held that, prompt action in such matter should be taken as soon as the incident as mentioned in the FIR as well as referred in the grounds for detention have taken place. Relevant para-27 reads as under: “As regards the second contention, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, the delay in passing the detention order, namely, after 15 months vitiates the detention itself. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Though there is no hard and fast rule and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that behalf, however, when there is undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order, it is incumbent on the part of the court to scrutinize whether the Detaining Authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a reasonable and acceptable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned” 13. We take the notice of the admitted fact that during the gap of 3 months time, no any fresh complaint being registered against the applicant. In absence of any complaint or other materials, the conclusion of the detaining authority that it was necessary to detain the applicant with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of the commodities essential to the community has no rationality and the subjective satisfaction being arrived without any material. In such set of circumstances, we are of the view that considering the undue delay of 3 months between the prejudicial activities and passing of the detention order, the detaining authority failed to examine such delay and did not assign any reasons or explanation as to why such delay has occasioned. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we came to the conclusion that the impugned detention order has been rendered illegal for the reason being that, there was a delay in passing detention order. 15. In light of the above discussions, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the ground as discussed above, as the detention order has become illegal for violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the order of detention dated 22.02.2024 is hereby quashed. We direct the detenue to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service permitted.