BANKATLAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 17-10-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

470 
BANKATLAL 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
October 17, 1974 
[P. N. BHAGWATI, AND R. S. SARKARIA, Ji.) 
Maintmance of Internal Stcurity Act 1971--S. 3(1) (a) (iii)-Scope of-"Supply 
and Service" meaning of. 
Whet her detaining authority bound to convey all the details of previous convic· 
tions of the detenu. 
B 
Pursuant to two orders of detention under s. 3(1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance 
of Internal Security Act, 1971 the petitioner was detained on the ground that he 
was indulging in adulteration of essential foodstuffs and was in possession of donkey 
C 
dung, sawdust, $'PSum, ICI colours and coloured plastic paper used and intended for 
use in adulteration of foodstuffs; that the samples of foodstuffs sold by him, on 
examination were found to contain highly adulterated material; that the recovery 
of huge quantity of adulterated foodstuffs and adulterated material which is un-
hygenic and injurious to public health proved that by indulging in the business of 
manufacture, sale and storage for sale of such egsential commodities he had been 
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenanc:c of supplies essential to the commu· 
nity and that he could not be prevented from doing so by prosecution unde1· the 
D 
Prevention of 1'ood Adulteration Act. Before the confirmation of the order Clf 
detention by the Government the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition before 
the Hi~h Court, which was dismissed. In a petition under article 32 of the Constf... 
tution it was contended (i) that the grounds·of detention were non-existent; (ii) thnt 
the grounds communicated to the detenu did not have a direct nexus with the main· 
tcnance of supplies and servicea essential to the community; and (Iii) that In an 
affidavit filed before the Hl11h Court the Distri1:t Magistrate relied upon an earlier 
prosecution and conviction of the petitioner under the Prevention of Food 
Adulteration Act, but failed to mention this ground in the order of detentioll, in 
B 
consequence of which the grounds communfoated were vague. 
Dismissing the petition, 
HELD : (I) It cannot be said that the grounds of detention were non-existent. 
On the report of the public analyst the chilli powder and haldiwhole would be deemed 
to be adulterate~ articles of food falling within the definition of cl. (c) and (f) res-
pectively and Amchoor within the definition of cl. (b) and (c) of s. 2(1) of the Pre-
vention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In the light of the information received 
F' 
by the detaining authority that !he petiti?ner had been systematically adulterating· 
foodstuffs on a llU'ge scale, the discovery m bulk of extraneous matter stored in tht: 
premises which could be used for adulteration could not be said to be irrelevant. 
[477 H; 478 A-BJ 
(2.)(a) Supplies in the context of s. 3(l)(a) (Iii) means supply of essential 
commodities or foodstuffs in a wholesome form. 
It does 
not 
mean 
the 
supply 
Of 
their 
ad1J!terated 
substitutes. 
Engagement 
in 
the 
process of adulteration of foodstuffs meant for sale is an activity highly prejudicial 
G 
to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, more so 
when it is done ill an organised manner and on a large scale. {478 F·G] 
Misrl Lal v. Th~ State A.I.R 1951 Pat. 134 F. B. over-ruled, and Harl Ram v, 
State (1974) 25, RaJ. Law Weekly p. 26 approved. 
(b) Food adulteration activity particularly of an organised kind is an activity 
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the 
community which may justify an order of detention under s. 3(1) (a)(iii) of the Act 
B. 
One of the primary necessaries of life is food; one of the elementary obligation~ 
of a welfare state is to ensure food to its citizens. The concepts of "supplies" and 
s"ervlces" interm/ngle in the discharge of that obligation by the State. Maintenance 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
II 
BANKATLAL v. RAJASTHAN (Sarkoria, J.) 
4 71 
of sale of pure food stuffs to the public is be>th a "supply" and a"service". A person 
who sells adulterated food to the people not only evinces a tendency to disrupt 
tho even flow of essential supplies but also interrupts service to the community. 
(479 G·H] 
Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, Writ petition No. 1999 of 1973 decided 
on 21-8-1974 referred to. 
(c) One broad test for the exercise of the power which the detaining authority 
may keep in view, particularly in a case of adulteration of foodstuffs is whether the 
material before it 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.