BACHHRAJI B PITALIYA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SURAT
LAWS(GJH)-1993-11-31
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on
November 11,1993
BACHHRAJI BIHARILAL PITALIYA
Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,SURAT
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. ATAMA RAM SHRIDHAR VAIDYA [REFERRED]SAHIB SINGH DUGAL JAGDAV KUMAR GUPTA PETITIONERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
DHARA SINGH VS. DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT [REFERRED]
RAMESHWAR LAL PATWARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
JAYANARAYAN SUKUL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
NAGENDRA NATH MONDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
MOHAMMAD SALIM KHAN VS. C C BOSE [REFERRED]
BORJAHAN GOREY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
DURGA PADA GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
RASHID SK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
MOHAMMAD SUBRATI ALIAS MOHAMMAD KARIM VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
HARADHAN SAHA MADAN LAL AGARWALA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
RAM BALI RAJBHAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
SADHU ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
FRANCES CORALIE MULLIN VS. W G KHAMBRA [REFERRED]
HARISH PAHWA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
L M S UMMU SALEEMA VS. B B GUJARAL [REFERRED]
MASUMA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED]
RAJSUDDIN ALIAS BABU TAMCHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. ZAVAD ZAMA KHAN [REFERRED]
SHIV RATAN MAKIM S O NANDLAL MAKIM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
ASLAM AHMED ZAHIRE AHMED SHAIK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
KAMARUNNISSA BADHRUNNISSA SITHY AYSHA KAMARUNNISSA BADHRUNNISSA SITHY AYSHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
RAMNIKLAL MOHANLAL PANDIT VS. C J JOSE DEPUTY SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT [REFERRED TO]
DALPATBHAI BHIKHABHAI PATEL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SURAT [DISTINGUISHED]
PARSHOTTAMBHAI NAVALRAM KHEMANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
ZARIN NOORMAMAD KASAM VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
VALJIHHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD CITY [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
URMILA NARESH MITTAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1996-10-19] [REFERRED TO]NARAYAN TUKARAM BADDI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1995-9-20] [RELIED ON]
SHANTABEN HARSHADBHAI CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1995-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
SHAH, -
(1.)A public spirited social worker acting as anonymous informer to the Dist. Magistrate, Surat was instrumental in unearthing a systematic and well-organised activity of obtaining licence to deal in essential commodities and/or obtaining authorisation to run a fair price shop for supply of essential commodities, and thereafter illegally and unauthorisedly transferring for handsome considerations such licence or authorisation to unauthorised merchants or traders who would in their turn try to earn still higher profits-of course, at the cost and miseries of common menconsumers. The master-mind working behind this dubious devices is that of one Mr. Jayantilal Shah who was successful in obtaining number of licences and/or authorisation in diverse names to receive and sell 'kerosene' at subsidised rates. Having obtained such licences and/or authorisation he had transferred for handsome consideration the rights flowing therefrom to other persons who in their turn are found to be making profit by selling such essential and scarce commodity at very high prices to unauthorised persons (persons other than card-holders). It is also found that said Jayantilal Shah was retaining partial control so as to usurp or share the profits resulting from blackmarketing of essential commodity like kerosene.
(2.)Aforesaid information supplied by the informant led to immediate investigation by a term of Supply Inspectors of the Office of District Supply Officer at various places of business of said Jayantilal Shah and shocking revelations as aforesaid came to light. The persons in charge of the business, in absence of any licence or authorisation in their name, made confessional statements fully involving said Jayantilal Shah and themselves. Said Jayantilal Shah, however, escaped and avoided investigation and inquiry and was even successful in avoiding arrest for a long period pursuant to order of detention. The unauthorised transferees of such licences and authorisation are also detained by orders of detention passed on 21/05/1993 by the District Magistrate, Surat under Sec. 3(2) of Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Along with said order of detention the grounds of detention duly formulated under Sec. 8(1) of the said Act are supplied to detenu. Since the detenus of present four petitions are served with such orders of detention, and since common questions of law and facts arise in these petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.)Blackmarketing has at its base a shortening of supplies because blackmarket flourishes best when the availability of commodities is rendered difficult. It has a definite tendency to disrupt supplies when scarcity exists or scarcity is created artificially by hoarding to attain illegitimate profits. Indulging in blackmarketing is a conduct which is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies (vide Rameshwar Lal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1303).
(2.)Aforesaid information supplied by the informant led to immediate investigation by a term of Supply Inspectors of the Office of District Supply Officer at various places of business of said Jayantilal Shah and shocking revelations as aforesaid came to light. The persons in charge of the business, in absence of any licence or authorisation in their name, made confessional statements fully involving said Jayantilal Shah and themselves. Said Jayantilal Shah, however, escaped and avoided investigation and inquiry and was even successful in avoiding arrest for a long period pursuant to order of detention. The unauthorised transferees of such licences and authorisation are also detained by orders of detention passed on 21/05/1993 by the District Magistrate, Surat under Sec. 3(2) of Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. Along with said order of detention the grounds of detention duly formulated under Sec. 8(1) of the said Act are supplied to detenu. Since the detenus of present four petitions are served with such orders of detention, and since common questions of law and facts arise in these petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.)Blackmarketing has at its base a shortening of supplies because blackmarket flourishes best when the availability of commodities is rendered difficult. It has a definite tendency to disrupt supplies when scarcity exists or scarcity is created artificially by hoarding to attain illegitimate profits. Indulging in blackmarketing is a conduct which is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies (vide Rameshwar Lal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1303).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.