Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
ON THE 23 rd OF JANUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 11876 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
BHARAT SINGH THAKUR S/O SHRI SURAJ SINGH
THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT R/O VILLAGE TILLI, POST KISHANGARH, P.S.
PAWAI, PANNA,(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JABALPUR
DISTT.JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JABALPUR
DISTT.JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIVEK SHARMA - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE SHEEL
NAGU passed the following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India was filed against
the order of Preventive Detention passed under the Prevention of Black
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 1/25/2023
4:52:18 PM
Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 on
14.06.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Jabalpur, detaining the petitioner for a
period of six months.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner at the very outset submits that not only
period of three months prescribed under Article 22(4) of Constitution of India,
but also period of six months has expired since long and accordingly, the cause
raised herein has become infructurous.
2.1 It is also informed that petitioner had already been released on bail by
order dated 18.08.2021 by this Court after referring the matter to the Larger
Bench by order dated 16.08.2021.
3. The Larger Bench was constituted and rendered its decision on
30.09.2022 to the following extent:-
"By the order of a Division Bench of Indore Bench of this Court dated
16.08.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.11876 of 2021 (Bharat Singh Thakur vs.
State of M.P. and others) and Writ Petition No.11548 of 2021 (Sudheer Soni @
Rahul Soni vs. Union of India and others), the following questions have been
referred for determination by the Full Bench:
"1. Whether as per section 3(3) and (4) of the Black Marketing Act (or any
other analogous provision of any other detention law) permits the District
Magistrate/competent authority to detain the person beyond the period of three
months in one go. In other words, whether section 3(3) and (4) aforesaid
restricts the competent authority to pass the order of detention at the first
instance only for a period of three months?
2. In view of above cleavage of opinion in the judgment of the Apex Court
(one of which was followed by the Division Benches of this Court), which view
shall be binding precedent for this Court?"
2. We have heard learned counsels.
3. We have considered in detail the referral order. Reference therein was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 1/25/2023
4:52:18 PM
made to conflicting judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.
Devaki vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in (1990) 2 SCC
456 on the one hand and Cherukuri Mani vs. Chief Secretary, Government of
Andhra Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 13 SCC 722 on the other hand.
Thereafter, the referral Court has framed these questions for the Full Bench to
answer.
4. So far as the first question is concerned, Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section
3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential
Commodities Act, 1980 (for short "the Act") reads as follows:
"3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.-
(1) *** *** ***
(2) *** *** ***
(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."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 1/25/2023
4:52:18 PM
A reading of the aforesaid provisions does not make any reference with
regard to detaining a person beyond a period of three months in one go. There
is also no reference at all whether the initial period of detention can be only for
a period of three months. The contents of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 3
of the Act are totally different. Therefore, the question that has been framed has
no nexus with the specific provisions of law referred to.
5. So far as the second question is concerned - as to which of the opinions of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding, we do not think that this
is also a necessary question to be answered by us. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in number of judgments has clearly held as to which judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court are binding. It is not required by the Full Bench to answer this
question. It is for the appropriate Court to answer the said question.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to answer the
questions referred. These are not the questions required to be answered by the
Full Bench.
7. The questions for reference in Writ Petition Nos.11876 and 11548 of 2021
are accordingly answered, as above.
8. The Writ Petition Nos.11876, 11548 and 12206 of 2021 are remitted. The
matters shall be placed before the concerned Court for necessary orders in
accordance with law."
4. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that no fresh order of
Preventive Detention was passed by the State Government after expiry of initial
period of impugned order of Preventive Detention.
5. In view of aforesaid facts and subsequent developments, impugned
order of Preventive Detention dated 14.06.2021 passed by District Magistrate,
Jabalpur, has rendered infructuous.
6. In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for petitioner
does not wish to press this petition, which accordingly stands dismissed as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 1/25/2023
4:52:18 PM
having rendered infructuous.
(SHEEL NAGU) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Sateesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 1/25/2023
4:52:18 PM
