Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

WP No. 104/75

Judges

Alladi Kuppuswami
Gangadhara Rao, JJ.

Acts

MAINTENANCE OF INTERNAL SECURITY ACT 1971

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Alladi Kuppuswami, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is the secretary of the Co-operative Rural Bank, Vanapalli, Kothapet Taluk, East Godavari District. The Bank was a "dealer" under the Andhra Pradesh Fertilizers (Distribution and Sale by Dealers) Order, 1974 (the "Order"). An order of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 ("the Act") was served on the petitioner on 14-2-1975.

The grounds of detention, as stated in the order, included the following factual allegations:

The petitioner received 200 bags of urea on 26-1-1975 and another 200 bags on 27-1-1975 from the District Co-operative Marketing Society, East Godavari, and he sold 260 bags of urea on 19-1-1975 to certain individuals without intimating receipt to the Panchayat Samithi, Kothapet, and without obtaining allocations from the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee, thereby allegedly violating clause 4(1) of the Order and acting prejudicially to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
He sold urea to five card-holders in quantities exceeding their entitlement, thereby allegedly violating clause 6 of the Order.
He clandestinely disposed of 88 bags of urea without intimating receipt to the Panchayat Samithi and without obtaining allocation from the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee, thereby allegedly violating clause 4(1).
When this alleged fraud was detected, it was further alleged that the petitioner fabricated false entries in a new bill book to conceal his illegal transactions.

The petitioner filed a writ petition (habeas corpus) challenging the legality and validity of the detention order. He contended that the first ground of detention was non-existent and/or vague, and that if ground No.1 was invalid the entire detention should be set aside. Grounds 2 and 3 were, in substance, admitted (sale in excess of card entitlements; sale of 88 bags without bills), though the petitioner sought to explain some conduct as done under directions of the Board or assurances from recipients.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether ground No. 1 of the detention order validly alleges a violation of clause 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Fertilizers Order (i.e., whether disposal of fertilizer without intimating receipt to the Panchayat Samithi and without allocations from the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee constitutes a breach of clause 4(1)).
How clause 4(1) should be construed when cards are issued by the Tahsildar (issuing authority) — whether compliance with a fertilizer card alone suffices, or whether disposal must also be "in pursuance of the orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2)".
Whether the detention was justified in circumstances where the petitioner’s licence had been ordered cancelled and directions had been issued to stop sales and surrender stocks prior to the detention order (i.e., whether post-detention administrative steps rendered detention unnecessary or unlawful).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (as represented by learned counsel)

The first ground of detention (violation of clause 4(1)) is non-existent or at least vague. Specifically, the petitioner argued that mere failure to intimate receipt of fertilizer bags to the Panchayat Samithi is not a violation of clause 4(1).
When cards were issued by the Tahsildar (the issuing authority), there was no obligation on the part of the dealer to wait for any allocation by the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee; compliance with fertilizer cards issued by the issuing authority suffices for lawful disposal.
The detention was unnecessary because, prior to the detention order, the Collector had ordered cancellation of the petitioner’s fertilizer licence, directed him to stop fertilizer sales and to surrender stocks to the Fertilizer Inspector, and proceedings for prosecution were to be launched — measures which, it was argued, made further harmful conduct impossible. The petitioner relied on a reported decision (K. Ramula v. Govt. of A.P.) where similar subsequent administrative action was treated as rendering detention unnecessary.

State's Arguments (as represented by the Government Pleader)

Clause 4(1) should be read to require two independent conditions for lawful disposal: (a) disposal must be in accordance with the fertilizer card issued by the issuing authority; and (b) disposal must be in pursuance of orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2). In other words, both compliance with the card and compliance with Panchayat Samithi orders are required.
It was admitted in the factual matrix that no orders under clause 3(2) had been issued by the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee; therefore the petitioner violated clause 4(1) when he disposed of fertilizers without such orders, even though cards had been issued by the Tahsildar.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
K. Ramula v. Govt. of A.P., 1975 ALT 220; 1975 (1) A.P. W.R. 109	Illustration that where, immediately after detention, steps are taken to suspend authorisation and to make the detained person incapable of repeating the prejudicial conduct (surrender of stocks, suspension of licence), such administrative measures may render continued detention unnecessary.	The Court was referred to this decision by the petitioner as an a fortiori example supporting release. The Court noted the decision and the principle but declined to treat it as a rigid or universal rule. The Court held that whether detention becomes unjustified by subsequent administrative steps depends on the circumstances of each case; on the facts here, the Court found that the prior cancellation of licence and directions to surrender stocks (issued more than 10 days before detention) were sufficient in the particular circumstances to justify releasing the petitioner.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in distinct stages: interpretation of clause 4(1), application of that interpretation to the facts, assessment of the vagueness allegation, and consideration of subsequent administrative steps taken prior to detention.

Interpretation of clause 4(1).
The Court set out clause 4(1) (as quoted in the opinion) which prohibits a dealer from selling or otherwise disposing of any stock of fertilizers "except in accordance with the fertilizer card issued by the issuing authority in pursuance of the orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2)".

The Court examined clause 3(2) (which empowers a Panchayat Samithi Level Committee to direct a dealer to distribute fertilizers in specified quantities, areas and times) and the definition of "issuing authority" in clause 2(e) (which, when cards are issued by the Tahsildar, does not require a recommendation from the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee for issuing cards).

The petitioner's counsel urged a construction that would treat compliance with the fertilizer card alone as satisfying clause 4(1) when the cards are issued by the Tahsildar. The State urged that clause 4(1) requires both compliance with the fertilizer card and that the disposal be in pursuance of orders of the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2).

The Court found the latter construction preferable. It reasoned that reading clause 4(1) as requiring both conditions gives meaning to the entire clause and to clause 3(2). If clause 4(1) were read as the petitioner suggested, the reference to "in pursuance of the orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2)" would be unintelligible or redundant. The Court accepted that courts should not lightly insert words into statutes, but regarded supplying a conjunctive "and" between the two phrases as permissible to avoid rendering part of the clause meaningless.
Application of the interpretation to the facts.
Applying the two-condition construction, the Court found that although cards had been issued by the Tahsildar (so the first condition was satisfied), the second condition — that disposal be "in pursuance of the orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2)" — had not been satisfied. It was admitted that the receipt of stocks from the Marketing Society was not intimated to the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee, and therefore the Committee had not made any allocations. The Court also noted a circular (dated 21-1-1975) directing dealers to intimate receipt of stock promptly to block officers and the Deputy Director of Agriculture.

On this basis the Court concluded that ground No.1 was not a non-existent ground; there was a real and intelligible charge of breach of clause 4(1).
Vagueness challenge.
The petitioner argued the ground was vague because the names of the individuals to whom the bags were sold were not given. The Court rejected that contention, reasoning that if the substantive allegation is that the bags were disposed of without obtaining allocations from the Panchayat Samithi, the identities of the recipients are not essential to make out the charge; while it might have been desirable to name them, omission of names did not render the grounds vague.
Effect of prior administrative action (cancellation of licence, order to surrender stocks) on the validity of detention.
The Court considered that the Collector had, more than ten days before the detention order, ordered cancellation of the petitioner’s fertilizer licence, directed cessation of sales, directed surrender of stocks to the Fertilizer Inspector, and that prosecution steps were being taken. A supplemental affidavit brought these facts to the Court's attention.

Although the Court refused to adopt as a hard-and-fast rule that cancellation of licence and seizure or surrender of stocks always renders detention unlawful, it held that the question depends on the circumstances of each case. The Court examined the facts and concluded that here, because the commodity is controlled and the licence cancellation and directions to surrender stocks occurred long before the detention order, there was no reasonable apprehension that the petitioner could further act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies.

Accordingly, despite upholding the intelligibility and validity of ground No.1 as a charge, the Court found that, on the specific facts (prior cancellation and surrender directions), continued detention was not justified and the detention order was liable to be set aside.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The writ petition is allowed; the detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith.

Direct consequences for the parties (as stated in the opinion):

The petitioner is to be released immediately.
There will be no order as to costs.
The Advocate's fee awarded in the judgment was Rs. 250/-.

Broader implications:

The Court refused to lay down a categorical rule that cancellation of licence or seizure/surrender of stocks will always render a detention order invalid; instead, whether detention remains justified after such administrative steps depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The Court adopted a purposive reading of clause 4(1) of the Fertilizer Order to give operative meaning to all parts of the provision, treating compliance with both the issuing authority's cards and Panchayat Samithi orders (as independent conditions) as required for lawful disposal under the clause.
The opinion does not state that it is establishing a novel, binding precedent beyond resolving the case on its facts; indeed, the Court expressly declined to make a blanket rule regarding the effect of licence cancellation on detention orders.

Disposition: Writ petition allowed. (Order also records "W.P Allowed." and the signatory initials "S.R.K.M" in the text.)

Show full summary ...

H. Raghunadha Rao v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

Alladi Kuppuswami, J.:— The petitioner is the secretary of Co-operative Rural Bank, Vanapalli, Kothapet Taluk in East Godavari District. The Bank is a dealer within the meaning of clause 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Fertilizers Distribution and sale by Dealers) order, 1974 referred to in this judgment as the order. An order of detention was served on the petitioner on 14-2-1975 under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (referred to in this judgment as the Act). In the grounds of detention it was stated that the petitioner had received 200 bags of urea on 26-1-1975 and another 200 bags of urea on 27-1-1975 from the District Co-operative Marketting Society, East Godavari and he sold of his own accord 260 bags of urea on 19-1-1975 to certain individuals without intimating the receipt of the fertilizer from the Marketing Society to the Panchayat Samithi, Kothapet and without obtaining allocation of fertilizers to the villages from the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee and thereby violating the provisions clause 4(1) of the Order and preventing the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee from arranging equitable distribution of urea to different villages in its limits by way of issuing allocation order and acting prejudicially to the maintenance of supply and services essential to the community. The second ground of detention was that he sold to five card-holders mentioned in the order, urea in excess of the quantity for which they were eligible, thereby violating the provisions of clause 6 of the order. The third ground was that he disposed of clandestinely 88 bags of urea without intimating the receipt of the urea bags from the Marketing Society to the Panchayat Samithi, Kothapet and without obtaining allocation of fertilizers to the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee, thereby violating clause, 4(1) of the Order. It was further stated that when the above fraud was detected, the petitioner fabricated false entries in a new bill book in order to ??? his illegal transactions. It was therefore stated that he was acting prejudicially to the maintenace of supplies and services essential to the community and as the District Magistrate was satisfied that be was to acting and that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from further acting in such a manner, the order of detention was passed.

2. The petitioner herein has filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas corpus directing the State of Andhra Pradesh to release the petitioner. It is contended that the order of dentention is illegal and void. The ??? contention is that the first ground of detention is a non-existent ground, and at any rate it is vague. Even assuming that grounds 2 and 3 are valid, if ground No. 1 is non-existent or vague, the entire detention order is liable to be set aside. As far as ground No. 2 is concerned, it is Page: 303not denied that the petitioner has sold urea in excess of the quantity mentioned in the Cards of the various card-holders enumerated in the order and the petitioner has thereby violated clause 6 of the order. It was however, stated in the petition that it was made under the directions of the Board of directors and also on the assurance of the card-holders that they would take lesser quantity in the next instalment. But this is not a matter which can be gone into in this Writ Petition and as long as it is admitted that there was sale of urea in excels of the quantity contained in the cards issued to the card-holders, there is a violation of clause of the order. Hence, it cannot be contended that ground No. 2 is in any way invalid. Similarly as far as ground No. 3 is concerned, it is also admitted that 88 bags of urea were sold without bills and no ??? arguments were advanced questioning the validity of this ground. Therefore the only question that remains for consideration is, whether ground No. 1 of the detention order is valid and ??? it is invalid, whether the entire order is treble to be set aside on that ground.

3. From the first ground which has already been set out, it is seen that the gravemen of the charge is that the petitioner has sold 260 bags of urea to certain individuals without intimating the receipt of the ??? bags ??? the District Co-operative Marketting society to the panchayat Samithi and without obtaining allocation of the villages from the panchayat Samithi Level Commitee and thereby the provisions of clause 4(1) of the order have been violated. It is contended by Sri ??? Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mere fact that the petitioner did not intimate the receipt of the fertilizer bags to the Panchayat samithi does not ??? a violation of Clause 4(1) of the Order, nor is there any obligation on the part of the petitioner to wait for allocation of fertilizers by the panchayat samithi ??? Commitee. According to him, all that is required under Clause 4(1) is, that he should distribute the fertilizers to the card-holders and as it is admitted that the urea ??? to in this ground was distributed only to card-holders, there is no ??? of clause 4(1) of the order.

4. In order to appreciate his contention it is necessary to set out Clause 4(1) of the order which is in the following terms.

“No dealer shall, after the commencement of this order, sell or otherwise dispose of, or offer to sell or otherwise dispose of any stock of fertilizers, ??? and ??? held by him, to any person or authority except in accordance with the fertilizer card issued by the issuing authority in ??? of the orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2)”.

5. Clause 3(2) provides that a panchayat Samithi Level Committee may from ??? to ??? by order, direct a dealer within its jurisdiction to distribute the fertilizers ??? and non-pool, held by him for sale to such Page: 304persons, in such quantities and at such times, as may be specified in the order made in this behalf. “Issuing authority is defined by clause 2(e) as meaning. The Tahsildar having jurisdiction or other officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of a Deputy Tahsildar empowered by the District Collector to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the issuing authority under this order in relation to the fertilizer cards issued by him; and until such fertilizer cards are so issued the Asst. Agricultural Officer of the Panchayat Simithi having jurisdiction, in relation to the fertilizer permits issued by him on the recommendation of the Panchayat Samihti Level Committee.” In this case the cards were issued by the Tahsildar. Who is the issuing authority under the first part of clause 2(e) of the order. Under clause 4(1), the prohibition is against a dealer selling or otherwise disposing of fertilizers to any person or an authority except in accordance with the fertilizer card issued by the issuing authority in pursuance of the orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2). It is therefore argued that as the petitioner has disposed of the fertilizers in accordance with the fertilizers card issued by the issuing authority namely, the Tahsildar there is no violation of clause 4(1) of the order. Under clause 2(3), if the issuing authority is the Tahiildar, it is not required that there should be any direction by the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee. It is only when the Assistant Agricultural officer exercises this function, that it has to be made on the recommendation of the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee. In this case, as the card was issued by the Tahsildar it is not necessary for him to have any directions or recommendation of the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee. It is therefore argued that the last part of clause 4(1) viz. “in pursuance of the orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Level Committee under clause 3(2)” has no meaning and has to be ignored when the issuing authority is the Tahsildar and taking into account the remaining part of clause 4(1) it is found that there is no ??? of clause 4(1) as the petitioner had disposed of the fertilize only in accordance with the fertilized bard issued by the issuing authority.

6. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the State by the learned Government Pleader that it is not proper to read clause 4(1) in the manner in which it is sought to be read by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. According to him, the proper way to read clause 4(1) is that the dealer cannot dispose of the stock of fertilizer except in accordance with the fertilizer card issued by the issuing authority and except in pursuance of the orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Simithi Level Committee under clause 3(2) of the Order. In this case, it is admitted that no orders were issued by the concerned Panchiyat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2) of the order. Therefore, the petitioner violated clause 4(1) when he disposed of the fertilizers to the card holders in the absence of such orders. In other words, the learned Government Pleaded Page: 305submits that the word “and” is, missing between the phrases “except in accordance with the fertilizer card issued by the issuing authority” and the phrase “in pursuance of the orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2)”. In our view, this construction of clause 4(1) appears to be more acceptable. It is seen from clause 3(2) that the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee may direct a dealer to distribute the fertilizers held by him for sale to such persons, in such areas and in such quantities and at such times, as may be specified in the order made in this behalf. Thus the direction by the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2) is only to a dealer and not to the issuing authority. If clause 4(1) is to be read in the manner suggested by the petitioner, it would mean that the card issued by the issuing authority is in pursuanee of the orders issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2) of the Order. As under clause 3(2) no orders are issued by the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee to the issuing authority in regard to the issue of cards it is obvious that the last part of clause (1) cannot have reference to or qualify the ??? “fertilizer card issued by the issuing authority”. The said clause will have meaning only if we read the clause as containing two independent conditions, namely, that the disposal of the fertilizer should be in accordance with the fertilizer card issued by the issuing authority and it should further be in pursuance of the order issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2). It is no doubt true that the general rule is that the court should not import into a statute words which are not there. But if the alternative is between supplying words which have been accidentally committed or adopting a construction which deprives the existing words of all meaning, it is permissible for the court to supply the words to make the ??? intelligible. We are of the view that unless the word “and” if read into clause 4(1) between the two phrases referred to above at the end of the clause, the last part of dame 4(1) would be unintelligible.

7. If clause 4(1) is so read, as stated above, it would follow that the dealer shall not dispose of fertilizer except in accordance with the fertilizer card issued by the issuing authority and in pursuance of the order issued by the concerned Panchayat Samithi Level Committee under clause 3(2). Though the first condition satisfied, the second condition has not been satisfied in this case. As a matter of fact it is admitted that the receipt of the stock from the Marketing Socieity was not intimated to the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee and therefore the Panchayat Samithi Level Committee could not make any allocations. In this connection, it may also be noted that by a circular dated 21-1-1975 the dealers were directed to intimate receipt of the stork to the B.D.O A.E.O of their Block and Deputy Director of Agriculture promptly.

8. In the view we have taken, it, follows that there is a violation of clause 4(1) of the Order and ground No. 1 cannot therefore be said be a non-existent ground.

9. It is further contended that the ground is vague, as it is stated that the urea bags were sold to certain individuals without naming the Individual Is. But as has been seen already, the charge is selling to card-holders without obtaining allocation of the fertilizers from the Panchayat Samithi. Committee and without informing the receipt of the fertilizers to the panchayat Samithi. If the bags have been disposed of without obtaining …… allecation of fertilizers it is irrelevant as to whom the fertilizers were disposed of. It is unnecessary therefore to inform the names of the individuals to whom the fertilizers were sold in order to make out the charge, though it would have been desirable to do so. It cannot therefore be said that the failure to give the names of the individuals renders the grounds of detention in any way vague. We do not therefore agree with this contention also.

10. Towards the end of the agruments, it was brought to our notice that the Collector gave a ??? to the petitioner stating that his fertilizer licence was ordered to be cancelled and directing him to stop fertilizer sales and to surrender the stocks to the Fertilizer Inspector concerned. This was followed by a memorandum of the same date confirming the ???. In that, it was stated that the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Rajahmundry was directed to cancel the licence. The petitioner was instructed to stop further sales of fertilizers and surrender all stocks to the Fertilizer Inspector of his area. It was also mentioned that at in was being taken by the Fertilizer Inspector to launch a prosecution against the petitioner. Apparently in pursuance of the directions of the Collector, the Assistant Director of Agriculture also issued a notice dated 2-2-1975 asking the petitioner to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled besides launching prosecution. The petitioner was also directed not to conduct any business and all the stocks held by the society, should be handed over to the Assistant Agricultural Officer concerned, until further order.

11. Having regard to these events which happended more than 10 days before the impugned order of detention, it is argued by Sri Padmanabha Reddy that the order of detention was not justified. In the order, of detention, it is specifically stated that the detention was necessary in order to prevent the petitioner from further acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance and supply of essential commodities. In view of the fact that steps for cancelling the licence have been taken, further sales have been stopped and all stocks are directed to be surrendered to the Fertilizer Inspector, it was argued that there is no possibility at all for the petitioner further acting in contravention of the Fertilizer Control Order in this connection, it has to be remembered that these fertilizers are commodities, which cannot be sold in the open market and the dealers have to be supplied the necessary fertilizers by the institutions concerned end have to dispose of the fertilizers to persons to whom allotment Page: 307is made. Our attention was drawn to recent decision of a Bench of this Court in K. Ramula v. Govt. of A.P ( 1975 ALT 220 1975 (1) An. W.R 109). In that case, the petitioner was doing business of an authorised fair price shop. Immediately after the order of detention, an order suspending the authorisation issued to the petitioner to run the fair price shop and directing him to surrender all books and stocks, to the Assistant Rationing officer was passed. In those circumstances, it was held that the effect of the latter order was to make the petitioner important as it were to ??? the ground under his feet. Even if he is not detained, he cannot any longer indulge any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies such as that for which he showed a proclivity. It was submitted that the present case is an afortiori case for the order directing him to surrender his stocks and stating that steps for launching prosecuttion and ??? of ??? were taken long before the order of detention.

12. Though this ground was not raised in the petition, a supplemental affidavit has been filed bringing to our notice the facts stated above.

13. We do not find it possible to lay down as a general proposition of law that in every case where a licence is cancelled and the stocks are directed to be surrendered, an order of detention would be illegal for the reason that the dealer would no longer be in a position to indulge in any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies. Accepting such a contention would in effect amount to holding that no order of detention at all can be made if a licence is cancelled or the stocks seized and if it is made it would cease to be legal the moment the licence is cancelled and the goods seized. In our view it depends on the circumstances of each case whether an order of detention can be justified. In this case, long before the order of detention was made steps were taken to cancel the licence and all stocks were directed to be surrendered. It is not a case where the petitioner is dealing in any other commodity which, it may be feared, may be sold in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies. Having ??? the commodity, and the conditions under which it could be sold, no reasonable person could ever entertain the appehension that the petitioner could further act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies. We are therefore of the view that the order of detention is liable to be set aside for the above reasons. The writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released forthwith. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/-

S.R.K.M

14. W.P Allowed.

H. Raghunadha Rao v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Alladi Kuppuswami, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (as represented by learned counsel)

State's Arguments (as represented by the Government Pleader)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

H. Raghunadha Rao v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

Comments