Centre on shaky legal ground, Jaspal claims

But the Ministry, in its wisdom, gave them what the courts did not. Exercising its powers in a subject which falls in the Concurrent List, the Ministry issued orders, annulling the State Government action. In one case, the accused had supplied adulterated groundnut oil for the mid-day meal scheme for school children. It is a different matter that nothing unfortunate happened.

An unhappy Singh has shot off a letter to Barnala, wondering whether there was any point in taking his job seriously if the State Government efforts to maintain the price line and check black-marketing, adulteration and hoarding were to be “thwarted by short, terse orders”, which could not stand legally scrutiny.

Among the accused in the oil adulteration case are four financially well-off businessmen – Ashwinbhai Pushottamdas Patel, Dilipbhai Chandubhai Patel, Rajendrabhai Jayantilal Sabugola, and Jayesh Kantilal Guru. Their detention orders were issued on August 13. While they evaded the police, the Ministry revoked the state government orders on September 25.

In his letter to Barnala, Singh objects to the Ministry’s “lenient view” of the case, pointing out that adulteration of mustard oil had led to deaths in Delhi and elsewhere in the country recently.

Singh has also expressed unhappiness that Barnala did not reply to his letter of August 21, regarding the revocation of the detention order of Vazirkhan Motamiya Bihari, who was caught selling adulterated diesel. Singh had then asked if the State Government action was unsound, so that mistakes were not repeated.

In his latest letter to Barnala, Singh alleges following infirmities in the Ministry’s orders:
Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court have held in many cases that petitions against detention orders cannot be entertained unless the accused surrender before the authorities.

The Ministry’s action is also contrary to the Law Ministry’s instructions that applications for relief should not be entertained by any government authority from fugitives from law.

All detention orders, issued by the State Government, are subject to a review by a statutory advisory board, which consists of three high court judges. The ministry’s action shows disregard for this statutory process.

The view of the State Government were not sought before passing the orders. Besides, the Ministry orders do not give reasons, which is contrary to Supreme Court judgements in several cases that unreasoned orders are not valid.

As the accused had been evading arrest, they could not be served the detention orders, which contain grounds of detention. Therefore, their representation to the Ministry could not be based on facts.

Copies of ministries’ order were sent to various jail superintendents, asking them to release the accused who were, in fact, at large. It shows the orders were passed in a mechanical manner, without application of mind.

According to Singh’s letter, if anyone challenged the Ministry’s orders in court in public interest, the Government would have to face embarrassment.

Singh has also drawn Barnala’s attention to his own (Barnala’s) letter to Chief Minister Keshubhai Patel, dated July 16, advising the State Government to “appropriate action” under the various laws against “speculators, hoarders, black-marketeers and profiteers”.

But the ministry’s action raised doubts as to “why it went out of the way” to favour those involved in large-scale adulteration and other malpractices, disregarding the State Government and the public interests “which should be our paramount concern”.

The letter says that “about 15 persons”, against whom the State Government had issued detention orders for malpractices, were still evading arrest. Stating that they might approach the Ministry, Singh says: “I request, rather beseech, you to give us adequate opportunity to explain our case” before taking a decision.