Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Avtar Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 August, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 RP-562-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
RP-00562-2021
(SANDEEP KUMAR PRAJAPATI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
RP/00562/2021
( SANDEEP KUMAR PRAJAPTI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
2
Indore, Dated : 16-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri P.K Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned AAG for the respondent/State.
With the consent, finally heard.
1. This review petitions seeks review of the orders passed by this
Court in WP Nos.11008/2021 and 11016/2021 dated 19.07.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the detention order
dated 17.05.2021 and the grounds of detention dated 17.01.2021 Annexure
R/6 and R/8 respectively were admittedly served on the detenue on the same
date simultaneously. However, a plain reading of section 8 of the Prevention
of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities
Act, 1980 shows that while serving the grounds of detention, the detaining
authority is bound to give earliest opportunity of making representation
against the order to the appropriate government. The full bench of this Court
in Kamal Khare Vs. State of MP passed in WP No.22290/2019 opined
that a detenue has a valuable and constitutional right to prefer a representation
before the detaining authority himself. Although, this right is clearly spelled
out by the District Magistrate in the detention order, it is lacking and not
mentioned in the 'grounds of detention' Annexure R/8. Thus, the singular legal
question raise is that if a statue prescribes a thing to be done in a particular
manner, it has to be done in the same manner only.
3. Reliance in this regard is placed on (1975) 1 SCC 559
(Ramchandra Keshav Adke vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Ors) and
(1993) 3 SCC 161 (Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi and Ors).
2 RP-562-2021
4. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
5. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties to sufficient length.
7. The detention order and grounds of detention are simultaneously
served on the detenue. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the
petitioner. Thus, even if in the grounds of detention it is not mentioned that
the petitioner/detenue can prefer a representation before the District
Magistrate, it is clearly mentioned in the order of detention. Thus, the
petitioner was made aware that he has a valuable right to prefer a
representation before the same authority namely District Magistrate. The
statue cannot be read in vacuum. Ultimately, the object and purpose behind
section 8 is to provide an opportunity of preferring a representation and in
addition detenue is to be informed before which authority he can prefer a
representation. Had it been a case where neither in the detention order nor in
the grounds of detention, it was mentioned about the said right of
representation to the District Magistrate, the matter would have been different.
In the instant case, in our opinion, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner if
said information about preferring representation to District Magistrate is
missing in the 'grounds of detention'. The detenue was made aware
simultaneously that he has a valuable right to prefer a representation before
the same authority namely District Magistrate. Thus, the judgment of Kamal
Khare (supra) and other judgments cannot be mechanically applied in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In absence of any prejudice
being caused to the petitioner in not mentioning the right of representation to
the District Magistrate in the grounds of detention, interference is declined.
No case is made out to review the order.
The petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by
SOURABH YADAV
Date: 2021.08.17 09:55:17
+05'30'
3 RP-562-2021
Sourabh
