Mailuenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Section 3(1),(a)(iiiJ-Two grounds of detention-One irrelevant-Effect of-Detaining Authority, more than one-Prdpriety. The petftioner was carrying on business in diesel oil, an essential commodity, in two places. He was detained under s. 3(1){a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, on the basis of allegations in lWo grounds that as had committed sets prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services 'l!ssentlal to the communit¥. The allegation in' the first ground was that he had stocked a large quantity of light dioesel oil in one of the places without waiting for the licence to be cleared by the Chief Controller of Explosives in violation of the provisions of the Petroleum Act. It was also stated in the ground that a complaint had be-en lodged in the lagistrate's court for the offence. The allegation in the second ground was that the petitioner violated the U.P. Sale of Motor Taxation Act and the rules made thereunder, in that the names and addresses of customers who had purchased light diesel from the petitioner, had not been given in the cash memos. Allowing the petition, HELD: (l)(a) There is no allegation by the detaining authority in the first ground that by storing the huge quantity of light diesel oil the petitioner had in any way affected the distribution or sale of that commodity; nor is there any allegation to show that th-e petitioner had refused to sell the oil to anybody who required it. Also there is no suggestion, far less any allegation, that the petitioner had tried to divert his stocks from one place to the other and thereby deprived the people of one place of their share of the oil. Therefore, there i's ab,!iolutely no correlation between the act of the petitioner and the disruption of distribution of essential supplies to the community. {20D-E, F-G] (b) Fron1 the violation of the mandatory provisions of the Petroleum Act and the Rules made thereunder, no presumption can be drawn that there was a disruption of supply of the escntial commodity. [20G-H1 (c) The commission of an offence at a private place or a violation of a provision of law by itself docs not attract the Maintenance of Internal Security Act unless, by the act committed, the supply oi' an essential commodity to the community is disrupted or the even flow of the life of the community is disruoted. [21B] Manu Bhusha11 Roy Prodha11 v. State of Bent;oi' and Otl1ers, ,A.. l. R. 1973 S. C. 29'5, referred to. (2) The second ground does di.sdose a clear .overt act from which an inference can be drawn that the petitioner had made a number of fictitious sales. But, in view of the finding that the first ground is irrelevant, it is not possible to determine to what extent the subjectivie satisfaction of the detaining authority was influenced or affected by the first ground. When out of 2 grounds one is vague or irrelevan't, then the entire order of detention falls to the ground. [22C, F-Gl
