A. Ramaswamy vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Madhava Rao, J.

In this writ petition the detention of one Anumandla Agaiah is questioned. The detention order was passed on 5-8-1981.

In the grounds of detention it is stated that the detenu has been indulging in clandestine business of cement by illegal purchase of cement for sale, sale of cement in black-market and storage of cement for sale unauthorisedly for more than four years with a view to make unlawful gain, thus directly defeating the provisions of A.P. Cement Distribution (L & R) Order, 1980. He had also contravened the provisions of similar laws in the past by dealing in cement without licence and indulging in hoarding, black-marketing and profiteering. Thus, his activities had been prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential of the community. Some of the illegal acts of the detenu were booked and action was taken against him under S. 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act by way of confiscation of seized cement. In the grounds of detention, six instances have been quoted.

A. Ramaswamy, the brother of the detenu filed the affidavit and in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit it is stated that ground No. 4 deals with the commodity known as Sagol which has got properties of cement but not cement within the definition of Cement Control Order of 1980. It is a free sale commodity and it is not subjected to the provisions of the Control Order. The panchanama conducted by the Tahsildar on 2-5-1981 itself clearly shows that what is seized is only Sagal and it is not an essential commodity disposal of this writ petition, there is no need to refer to other grounds.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Joint Collector, Warangal, it is stated that Sagol cement is a masonry cement far law in the physical standards than that of ordinary portland cement and it is not useful for structural concrete, for flooring and foundation work or for reinforced and prestressed concrete works but it is useful for binding and plastering purpose. It is stated that the cement in question, which is branded as Sagol, is also useful for binding and plastering purpose but is unfit for reinforced cement concrete work as per the opinion given in the certificate of analysis issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and relied upon by the petitioner himself. The analysis of the cement is also given in the affidavit. But we do not think it necessary to refer to it in view of the letter dated 24-12-1981 addressed to the Public Prosecutor by the Commissioner of Industries, Andhra Pradesh, Hydrabad, which discloses that Sagol cement does not come under the purview of Cement Control Orders and the letter reads as follows :

"Sub :- W.P. No. 6575/81, dt. 30-11-1981 - Sagol cement - Clarification - Regarding.

Anent to the subject cited above, I am enclosing herewith a copy of ''Telex Message'' received from the Regional Cement Controller, Madras (Government of India, Ministry of Industry) clarifying the position of ''Sagol Cement''. The Regional Cement Controller, Madras has stated the Sagol does not come under the purview of Cement Controller Orders and it is not subjected to either price control or distribution control. This is for your kind information.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

for Commissioner of Industries."

The Telex Message, which is annexed to the above letter is as follows :-

"Refer your Telegram dated 21-12-1981 regarding Sagol Cement. Sagol does not come under the purview of Cement Control Order. This is not subjected to either price control or distribution control. This is for your kind information."

In view of the above letter, the matter does not require to be pursued further.

It is evident that Sagal Cement does not come within the purview of the Control Orders and is not subjected to either price control or distribution control. Therefore, the respondents could not detain the detenu u/s 3 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 for possessing Sagol Cement. This is one of the grounds on which the detenu has been detained. As it is found that detention on this ground is bad, it is unnecessary for us to refer to other grounds of detention.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. No costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 250/-.

Petition allowed.