MAHINDER SINGH HADA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitioners were working as Drivers with Ambassador Sky Chef. According to the detention orders, Mahinder Singh Hada was engaged to drive staff bus, matador, tempo, car and high lift, etc., whereas Chhotey Lal was working as a Driver and it seems that he was used to driving high lift. Both Mahinder Singh Hada and Chhotey Lal made representations against their detention orders. Mahinder Singh Hada made a representation dated 2.1.1997 which was rejected on 15.4.1997 by the Detaining Authority. Chhotey Lal also made a representation against his order of detention on 2.1.1997, which was also rejected on 15.4.1997 by the Detaining Authority. It may be noted that the rejection of the representations in these cases took place after the filing of the writ petitions.

(2.) No reason at all is given in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents regarding the cause of more than three months delay in considering the represen- tation of Mahinder Singh Hada. Even in the case of Chhotey Lal, the Union of India has not given any reason why there is delay of more than three months in considering the representation.

(3.) In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 1986 SCC (Cri.) 60, wherein a Division Bench of the Supreme Court has considered 75 days delay as enormous in matters of preventive detention, in our view, the delay from 28.11.1996 to 15.4.1997 is large and enormous delay. In the present case, the delay is of more than 90 days. The Supreme Court had quashed the detention on unexplained delay in the aforesaid judgment, and inasmuch as there's no sufficient explanation for the delay of more than 90 days in the instant case, we also have to quash the detention order passed in the instant case.