Case: Jagdish Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar &amp; Another

3. Now, the admitted facts and the authoritative law and their interaction. It is best to begin with the impugned order itself which reads1182/C dated, the 9th October, 1973 whereas I am satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri Jagdish Prasad. Proprietor M/s. Lachmi Bhandar, North Market Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary to make an order that he be detained. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (No. 26 of 1971), I hereby direct that the said Shri jagdish Prasad be detained.He shall be treated in detention in Ranchi Jail and classified as Class Y and in division IB.(S. N. Singh)District Magistrate, Ranchi."

Court's reasoning:
If this reflects the slippery satisfaction of the District Magistrate it is unfortunate. Here some Upper Division Assistant (Special), Home Department, has sworn an affidavit, not with personal knowledge but with paper wisdom. It is difficult to appreciate why in return to a rule nisi in a habeas corpus motion, it is not thought serious enough even where liberty of a citizen is chocked off, to get the District Magistrate to explain his subjective satisfaction and the grounds therefor. Not even why he is not available nor the next best, the oath of a senior officer in the Secretariat who had been associated with the handling of the case at Government level. Mechanical affidavits, Miniaturising the files into a few paragraphs, by some one handy in the Secretariat cannot be regarded as satisfactory. This not a mere punctilio of procedure but a probative requirement of substance. However, in this case, counsel made no point about this aspect of the affidavit because the relevant material recited in the detention order is almost admitted in the petitioners averments. Even so, the curious striking off in the affidavit of one ground relied on by the District Magistrate in his order is obscure.The law is thus indubitable that if one ground is vague or denuded of any detail the order, even if other good grounds exist, is bad. The sole enquiry then is whether in substance no material has been set out here from which a rational inference regarding perverting services to the community has been given at all, as happened in Prabhu Dayals case W. P. No. 146 of 1973, D/-11-10-1973 : =(AIR 1974 SC 183   = 1974 Cri LJ 286). We demur.He who runs and reads will be satisfied, if the statements are true, - it is not for the Court to investigate the veracity of these averments - that prolix particulars are communicated about the midnight movement of 50 bags of rice - a clandestine misadventure contrary to the conditions of this wholesalers licence - and, when challenged reeled off imaginary numbers of licenses of dealers some of whom, on verification, had no current license and all of whom had disowned the alleged purchases. May be the petitioner has a good defence but the imprisonment is preventive and not punitive, the conclusion is based on the executives subjective satisfaction, not the Courts objective assessment. Even the admitted facts are tell-tale. The petitioner is a licenced wholesale dealer. He can carry on his business only at a place mentioned in his license and not do transport and sale outside those premises. He can sell only to a wholesale or retail merchant holding a permit. He shall issue to every customer a correct receipt giving the name, address and license number of the customer and other details and keep a duplicate of the same. On the recitals in the annexure to the order, the petitioner has, in violation of all these safeguards, attempted to run the gauntlet of the law. An intelligent forecast made by the District Magistrate that the detenu would break the control system and blackmarket in rice cannot be castigated as irrational. The argument is that all this is germane to supplies, not services. Therefore, as earlier explained, the whole order breaks down.The position of law is plain but does not apply here. We have been at pains to explain that illicit transport of foodgrains in the still secrecy of night by one whose business license does not permit it and who gives false excuses when confronted does indulge in an activity with impact on supplies and services. Supplies and stocks, if hijacked by wholesalers, upsets the delicate control scheme. So also transport and delivery to each centre according to its requirements is thrown out of gear by these private operations. And Bihar, hopping harrowingly from drought to floods, can ill-afford to have the wheels of distribution, of which supplies and services are two facets wobble or break down. Anyway, we cannot hold the order bad, in economics or law.16. Counsel referred to the quantity being but 50 bags of rice - too small to thwart supplies to the community. While that is of little avail legally, it suggest cynically that larger black-marketeers are easy in their bosom while deserving to be behind bars. That is not our province as judges and our views as citizens are out ofbe counsel is right in his contention all supplies are not services and all services are not supplies but the complex needs and amenities of modern life and the multifarious obligations of a welfare State mingle supplies and services so much that the concentric circle geometry becomes a misleading stroke of conceptualism in this jural area. For example, an essential commodity is at once a supply and a service. Section 36 (3) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, defines it to meancommodity" means, food, water, fuel, light, power or any other thing essential for the existence of the community which is notified in this behalf byand power" thus are commodities; so also food and water. Yet who will deny that light is a service or drinking water, for that matter? The touchstone of social control is that it must be a thing essential for the existence of the community; when crystallised it is supplies, when sublimated it is services. It depends in most cases on the angle from which you view and the lens you use. Food is supplies, so is shipping and wagons, kerosene and gasoline. And yet they are services. At a feeding centre for starving children you supply food, serve gruel. In other words, food is supplies, feeding is services. InBlackpool Corporation v. Locker (1948) 1 KB 349it was held that providing housing accommodation fell within the scope of "supplies and services" in Regulation 51(1) of the Defence (General) Regulation, 1939. We see no force in the dichotomy between the two attempted by counsel in the special context of a State being called upon in an emergency to supply that primary necessity of existence, viz., food, which is perhaps the basic service which Government must render to the people. In the present case, the allegation is of nocturnal, illegal, rice transport, intercepted by officials, and you do no violence to language to describe that activity as prejudicial to supplies and services. Anyway, rushing food supplies to a nation in hunger is a composite operation of supplies and services essential to the life of the community and the order is not bad because it telescopes both.The present case hardly fails for this reasons since particulars of grounds are given which cover supplies and services to the community prejudice to which is the rationale stated in the order. But it is contended that the particulars furnished relate to supplies only and how services are affected is left vague. If one ground is vague, the order fails. In Rameshwar Lal (1968) 2 SCR 505   = (AIR 1968 SC 1303   = 1968 Cri LJ 1490) it was pointed out.where some grounds are found to beare cancelled or given up, the detention cannot be justified.......if the grounds are not sufficiently precise and do not furnish details for the purpose of making effective representation the detention can be questioned."