Y KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner, Yudhister Kumar, who had been detained by the order of detention passed on 22nd April, 1983. The first writ petition being Criminal Writ Petition No. of 1983, was dismissed by our order passed on 12th September, 1983.

(2.) It may be noted here that the two co-detenus of the petitioner, namely, Deepak Kumar and Dinesh Kumar had also been detained by the order of the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi passed on the same date under section 3(1), read with section 2(f) of the Act. The three orders of detention were practically identical and the grounds of detention were also similar. The writ petitions of the co-detenus (Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 84 and 77 of 1983) were allowed, vide our order passed on 28th November, 1983. While quashing the impugned detention orders we made the rule absolute. In those petitions after going through the record we found that the joint representation made on behalf of Yudhishster Kumar, petitioner herein, Deepak Kumar and Dinesh Kumar. for sapply of documents, some of which had been relied upon by the detaining authority, had been rejected by it, vide memorandum dated 24th June, 1983. We further found that a copy of the said memorandum was sent to each of the three detenus. On behalf of the respondents it was adnutted in those petitions that along with the letter of the 2nd June, 1983 a letter written by anAdvocate,.for supply of documents on behalf of the co-detenus, a copy of the letter sent by him on behalf of all the three detenus earlier for supply of copies had been enclosed. On this aspect we observed :

(3.) Further we found that "as noticed above, the application made for supply of documents was a common application on behalf of all the three detenus. The copies of the documents recovered, from the residenoe of the petitioners and also from Y. Kumar, which have been referred to in the grounds of detention, were also requested to be supplied".