Case: Nathmal Vs. The State of Rajasthan &amp; Others

and order of detention were passed against the petitioners male fide.7. We think that the order of detention made against the petitioners are not fit to be sustained in the eye of law. The Rajasthan (Display of Prices of Essential Commodities) Order was promulgated in the year 1966. According to the order as originally made only a price list had to be display at the business premises. By an amendment made on December 8, 1971, the requirement of display of stock list also became obligatory. With reference to ground No. 1 it would have been difficult to take the view that mere recovery of the quantities of certain articles mentioned in that ground from the premises of the petitioners without there being may allegation of violation of any law other than the order of 1966 would be sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the petitioners had acted in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities. In that event one could say that there was no nexus between the ground and the order of detention. The Rajasthan (Display of Prices of Essential Commodities) Order, 1966 made it imperative for the petitioner to display price and stock list so that persons going for purchase may know the correct stock position and the price. But, if the shop was not open on the day under consideration the petitioners could not be expected to display the prices or stock list on that day. In so far as it was assumed to be open an extraneous consideration had entered into the case. If it was assumed that ground No. 1 existed when in fact, it obviously did not this ground was vitiated. Thus defect was sufficient to vitiate the whole detention order for introduction of an extraneous non-existent ground.8. As regards recovery of many drugs from the petitioners premises as mentioned in ground No. 2 it was presumed that they were kept for the purpose of sale without a licence in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In neither of the ground, however, it was alleged that the petitioners had refused to sell any of the articles to any of the customers. Even assuming that the violation of the law coupled with recoveries of large quantities of essential commodities and medicines could lead to the inference that the petitioners intended to hold them for profiteering yet one thing is plain. On the special facts and in the circumstances of this case we find no clear averment that the petitioners shop was open for transacting any business. In the background of the event of demolition of thadies followed by deputation to the District Magistrate it is quite legitimate to assume that the petitioners case that there was a strike on June 29, 1974, is correct. We do not accept their case that shop below Dr. Taks residence was not theirs but of their father. But in absence of a specific denial in the further affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate in reply to the petitioners rejoinder we believe that their shop was not open for transacting any business. Whether the petitioners were, otherwise, justified in closing their shop or not surely they were not expected to display the price and stock list in the shop when as a protest to the demolition of their thadi they had gone on strike and had refused to transact any business in the shop. The search of the petitioners premises was in such a close juzta position of the demolition of their thadi that the whole conspectus of events does not leave a happy impression in our minds as to the justifiability and legality of the detention orders made against the petitioners. It appears to us that the power of detention was not exercised in this case in a fair, proper and legal manner. On the particular facts of this case, even though the satisfaction of the detaining authority was to be subjective under the law, it seems to us that extraneous factors introduced an infirmity which can justify the Courts interference with the order of detention.9. Strong reliance was placed on behalf of the respondent upon the decision of this Court in Kamla Prasad v. D. M., Saran ((1975) 1 SCC 314 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 141) to which one of us (Untwalia, J.) was a party. It will be noticed from the facts of that case that grounds in effect stated that the petitioner had hoarded and concealed the essential commodities in his business premises as also in his residential house and that he did not display the stock position in his business premises and further when the customers wanted to purchase soaps and matchboxes he refused to sell them saying that he had no stock. In such a situation it was alleged that the petitioner had hoarded the stock with the intention of selling them in blackmarket with a view to make undue profit. It is no doubt true that in paragraph 6 of the judgment it is said that from the mere fact that the petitioner did not display the stock of matchboxes and soaps in the business premises the only possible conclusion was that he was hoarding the stock for the purpose of selling it in blackmarket and thus make undue profit. But the said dictum had to be appreciated in the background of the entire facts of Kamla Prasads case (supra). The refusal to sell to the customers clearly showed that even though the business was being carried on in the premises the stock position was not displayed. On the other hand, on the fact of this case, we are not satisfied that there was failure on the part of the petitioners to display the price and stock list in their shop or that it could lead to the conclusion that their intention necessary was to hoard the good and do any blackmarketing or profiteering. No instance of any sale at blackmarket rates was given.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. As regards recovery of many drugs from the petitioners premises as mentioned in ground No. 2 it was presumed that they were kept for the purpose of sale without a licence in violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In neither of the ground, however, it was alleged that the petitioners had refused to sell any of the articles to any of the customers. Even assuming that the violation of the law coupled with recoveries of large quantities of essential commodities and medicines could lead to the inference that the petitioners intended to hold them for profiteering yet one thing is plain. On the special facts and in the circumstances of this case we find no clear averment that the petitioners shop was open for transacting any business. In the background of the event of demolition of thadies followed by deputation to the District Magistrate it is quite legitimate to assume that the petitioners case that there was a strike on June 29, 1974, is correct. We do not accept their case that shop below Dr. Taks residence was not theirs but of their father. But in absence of a specific denial in the further affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate in reply to the petitioners rejoinder we believe that their shop was not open for transacting any business. Whether the petitioners were, otherwise, justified in closing their shop or not surely they were not expected to display the price and stock list in the shop when as a protest to the demolition of their thadi they had gone on strike and had refused to transact any business in the shop. The search of the petitioners premises was in such a close juzta position of the demolition of their thadi that the whole conspectus of events does not leave a happy impression in our minds as to the justifiability and legality of the detention orders made against the petitioners. It appears to us that the power of detention was not exercised in this case in a fair, proper and legal manner. On the particular facts of this case, even though the satisfaction of the detaining authority was to be subjective under the law, it seems to us that extraneous factors introduced an infirmity which can justify the Courts interference with the order ofwill be noticed from the facts of that case that grounds in effect stated that the petitioner had hoarded and concealed the essential commodities in his business premises as also in his residential house and that he did not display the stock position in his business premises and further when the customers wanted to purchase soaps and matchboxes he refused to sell them saying that he had no stock. In such a situation it was alleged that the petitioner had hoarded the stock with the intention of selling them in blackmarket with a view to make undue profit. It is no doubt true that in paragraph 6 of the judgment it is said that from the mere fact that the petitioner did not display the stock of matchboxes and soaps in the business premises the only possible conclusion was that he was hoarding the stock for the purpose of selling it in blackmarket and thus make undue profit. But the said dictum had to be appreciated in the background of the entire facts of Kamla Prasads case (supra). The refusal to sell to the customers clearly showed that even though the business was being carried on in the premises the stock position was not displayed. On the other hand, on the fact of this case, we are not satisfied that there was failure on the part of the petitioners to display the price and stock list in their shop or that it could lead to the conclusion that their intention necessary was to hoard the good and do any blackmarketing or profiteering. No instance of any sale at blackmarket rates was given.