Gangaram Prajapati vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 16947 of 2021, Judgment Date: Dec 14, 2021

Law laid down - 

1. The order of preventive detention for its sustainability needs to satisfy compliance of the procedural mandate of Section 3(3) of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 obliging the District Magistrate, who passes the order of preventive detention to forthwith report to the State Government.

2. The expression “forthwith” used in Section 3(3) of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 means immediately without any unnecessary unexplained delay.

3. In the present case, the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate was forwarded nearly after 10 days of its passing thereby vitiating the same in the absence of any cogent explanation for the delay.

4. The District Magistrate is required to forthwith forward to the State Government under Section 3(3) the order and the relevant documents and thus cannot delay forwarding on the pretext of the detenu not having been arrested.

5. The approval by the State Government is of the order of preventive detention and not of the physical detention/arrest of the detenu and, therefore, the District Magistrate is obliged to forthwith forward the order along with supporting grounds to the State Government, notwithstanding non-arrest of detenu, failing which the order would stand vitiated.

Gangaram Prajapati vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others