Baldev Singh @Ranjit Singh @ Billu vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Singh, J.

The petitioner Baldev Singh alias Ranjit Singh alias Billu has been detained by the Punjab Government under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, vide an order dated 2421983 (Annexure R. 1). He has challenged the validity of the detention order in this criminal writ petition.

According to the grounds of detention the petitioner had been indulging in the smuggling of goods since 1st week of April, 1982. A case under Section 9 of the Opium Act was registered against him on July 12, 1982 as 15 kgs. of opium was recovered from him. For these prejudicial activities, the impugned order was passed against the petitioner by the State Government.

It is not disputed that the petitioner was interrogated after he was arrested on July 13, 1982 and in the wake of interrogation the prejudicial activities carried on by him come to light. On the basis of these activities the detention order was passed seven months thereafter on February 24, 1983, (Annexure R.1). The contention on behalf of the petitioner''s that there was no proximity between his last alleged activity and the order of detention because of the unexplained delay between the two. It is, therefore, said that there is no nexus between the alleged activities and the passing of the detention orders.

The explanation of the State Government regarding this delay, as given in the written statement, is that the proposal of detention was sponsored by the District Magistrate on November 25, 1982. There is however, no cogent explanation as to why the district authorities took more than four months to sponsor the proposal of detention. It remains unexplained as to why the district authorities did not consider initiating proposal for such a long time despite having all the information and material. It is admitted in the written statement that the prejudicial activities carried on by the petitioner had come to light on July 13, 1982 on his interrogation. There was, therefore, no reason to wait for more than five months to sponsor the proposal of detention under the Act.

The proposal was received by the State Government on November 29, 1982 and yet nearly three months were taken to pass the detention order. No cogent explanation has been offered for this delay. It is said that some clarification was sought from the District Authorities on December 3, 1982 and the District Authorities furnished the clarification on December 17, 1982 i. e. after a lapse of two weeks. There is no explanation for this delay. Even when the clarification was received on December 17, 1982 more than two months were taken to pass the detention order without any cogent reason.

It has been consistently ruled by the Supreme Court that when there is unexplained delay between the passing of the detention order and the alleged activity of the detenu, it can be assumed that there was no rational subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority for passing the order. Some of the judgments in which this view was taken are Jagan Nath Biswas v. The State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court 1516, Lakshman Khatik v. The State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 1264 and Harnek Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, A.I.R., 1982 Supreme Court 682.

In the present case in my view there is no adequate explanation for the delay of more than seven months between the date of the last activity of the petitioner and the passing of the detention order against the petitioner. The order, therefore, appears to be, punitive rather than preventive. On this ground alone the detention is vitiated.

The petitioner is entitled to succeed on another ground also that there is unexplained delay in the disposal of his representation. He submitted a representation on October 6, 1996, which was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Amritsar for comments. The comments were received on November 3, 1986. There is no explanation as to why the District Authorities took nearly a month to send the comments. After the comments were received from the District Magistrate, the representation as examined upto December 9, 1986 on different dates and rejected on December 10, 1986. During this period the representation remained unattended on 10th, 14th, 20th, 26th and 27th November, and 3rd December, 1986. No explanation has been offered in this respect.

It is now well settled by a large number of judgments of the Supreme Court that the delay in the disposal of the representation made by a detenu, which has not been sufficiently explained, is by itself a sufficient ground for holding that the order of detention is illegal. It is held in Abdus Sukkur v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1972 Supreme Court 1915, that the object underlying Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would be defeated if the authority concerned does not pay prompt attention to the representation submitted by the detenu.

In my view, therefore, the unexplained delay in the passing of the detention order as well as in the disposal of the petitioner''s representation it by itself sufficient ground to declare the detention order illegal.

Consequently, the impugned detention order (Annexure. R.1) is revoked and the petitioner is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.