SURINDER MEHTA Vs. K L VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment disposes of two writ petitions. Criminal Writ Petition No. 567 of 1988 has been filed by Surinder Mehta and Criminal Writ Petition No. 561 of 1988 by Yudhister Kumar. The challenge in both the petitions is to the order passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the Act) by Shri K. L. Verma, specially empowered officer. The detention orders against both the detenues were passed on 25th October, 1988 with a view to preventing them from abetting in the export from India of narcotic drugs. These are successive orders of detention against the petitioners. The first orders were passed on 6th July, 1988. Those were revoked by orders dated 24th October, 1988 passed by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12(1) of the Act. The reasons stated in the order revoking the earlier detention of Surinder Mehta are as follows:

(2.) The order in Yudhister Kumar's case revoking the detention order of 6th July, 1988 gives the following reasons:

(3.) The main argument of Mr. R. L. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases is that the successive impugned detention orders are invalid as those could not be made after the expiry of three months of the service of earlier orders dated the 6th July, 1988. The plea is that the protection of Article 22(4) of the Constitution of India has been rendered ineffective by making of these orders on 25th October, 1988. His reliance is on Abdul Latif v. B.K. Jha & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 725(1). In the said case, the question for consideration was whether a law can be made providing for successive orders of detention in a manner as to render the protection of Article 22(4) of the Constitution ineffective. The ratio of that case is that although the making of successive orders of detention is permissible, yet a successive order cannot be made in a manner as to render the protection of that Article ineffective.