A CHENCHIAH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a write a habeas corpus for quashing the order of detention passed by the first respondent State of Tamil Nadu against the petitioner-detenu, dated 21. 2. 1985 and for setting him at liberty.

(2.) THE impugned order of detention has been passed by the first respondent-State of Tamil Nadu, under S. 3 (l) (ii) of the Conservation of foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act with a view to preventing the detenu from abetting the smuggling of goods. In pursuance of this order the second respondent-Joint secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance has made a declaration under S. 9 (l) of the Act, as a result of which, the period of detention has been extended to two years.

(3.) POINT 2: The order of detention has been passed on 21. 2. 1985, but, the detenu has been arrested and detained only on 5. 2. 1987 after nearly two years and this is sought to be made much of. But, it must be remembered that the petitioner has filed a write petition before this Court in w. P. 4517 of 1985, and has obtained a stay of execution of the order of detention. The writ has been dismissed on 16. 12. 1985. Thereafter, a writ appeal in W. A. 1172 of 1985 has been filed and it was dismissed only 10. 2. 1986. The copy of the order has been received by the Government only on 19. 3. 1986. Meanwhile the petitioner filed a writ before the High Court of Andra Pradesh in w. P. 88758 of 1986 and it was dismissed only on 12th December, 1986. Against the said order a writ appeal in W. A. 1371 of 1986 has been filed before the same high Court and it was dismissed on 22nd December, 1986. A copy thereof was received only on 21st January, 1987. No doubt, there has been no stay during the pendency of the writ proceedings before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, but, in view of the pendency of these proceedings the Government have stayed their hands and this cannot be pitted against them. The Government also seem to have made a notification under S. 7 (l) of the Act. In the circumstances, we are unable to hold that the delay in arresting the detenu and detaining him is due to any default on the part of the first respondent-State of Tamil Nadu, and this is no ground for quashing the order of detention.