Harbans Singh vs Govt. of India and Others

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of detention dated 11.10.1993 and the grounds of detention of even number and even date.

It is asserted that on basis of information a Customs Party, Amritsar visited Sunderbani Tehsil Area of District Rajouri on 3.8.1992. One of the officers with guide visited the village Menka Mahadev, near the line of actual control in J & K. Dev Raj was picked up. During interrogation, he disclosed that he along with one Rattan Singh and Som Raj had brought 580 Gold biscuits from Pakistan about 2 months back and the same were concealed under the stones on the outskirts of the village Menka Mahadev. He disclosed further that 300 gold biscuits and 200 gold biscuits were concealed at two different places. Army party recovered 300 gold biscuits on 25.7.1992 and 100 gold biscuits were snatched from Dev Raj by Rattan Singh under threat. Rattan Singh was picked up from his village. 90 gold biscuits were recovered from a bandolier, hidden under the stones in the same village. Gold biscuits were assayed from valuers. The same were sealed with the Customs Seal No. 195.

During interrogation, it was disclosed that Dev Raj had been working for some agency operating across the Border. Gold biscuits used to be hidden in the forest. They were ultimately to be delivered to the petitioner at a place called Hari Pattan. It was disclosed that in the past, gold biscuits were being delivered to the petitioner. Certain follow-up action was taken. Summons were issued to the petitioner, but could not be served. A complaint was filed against the petitioner on 4.2.1993 in the Court at Rajouri. Thereafter, an order was passed dated 11.10.1993 whereby petitioner was detained u/s 3(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.

The petitioner assails the said order and grounds of detention asserting that detention order is passed 14 months after the incident. It is void because satisfaction expressed is not real and genuine. It took 12 months to execute, the order. The order was passed much after even the complaint had been filed.

Petition has been contested. It has been pointed that there was no delay in considering the representation. The case of the detenu was placed before the Central Advisory Board. It found sufficient cause for his detention. The petitioner was stated to be a party to the smuggling activities. It was further alleged that detenu could be detained only on 22.10.1994 and detention order was served upon him.

At the time of arguments, large number of grounds were taken up to assail the order of detention but the petition is liable to succeed on the short ground that the impugned order had been passed after inordinate delay. The complaint even after satisfying all the alleged facts was filed on 4.2.1993 while detention order was passed on 11.10.1993.

There must always be a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention alleged by the detaining authority and the avowed purpose of detention. Where such. Half is snapped due to the long and unexplained delay in passing the order, an inference may well be drawn that there is no nexus between the incident and the order of detention. The said order would be invalid. There can be no hard and fast rule of timing.

I am supported in the above view by the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of 1990 (2) PLJR 77 (SC) . It was observed:

One of the contentions raised by the detenu is that the detaining authority has not explained the reasons why the detention order was delayed for almost 11 months after the involvement of the petitioner was revealed to the concerned authorities. In the counter filed in this behalf the detaining authority has contended that even though the seizure was effected on 30.11.1986 the investigation ended in April, 1987, i.e., five months after the seizure, even thereafter the proposal for detention was not moved till 26.8.1987. We do not think this is a satisfactory explanation.

That being the legal position, it is clear that there is no proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention. There is unexplained delay. No nexus is established between the order of detention and the said incident. The order, therefore, is liable to be quashed.

For these reasons, I accept this petition and quash the order of detention along with the grounds of detention of the same date.