K RAMESH ALIAS KALYA KANNAN Vs. SATISH SAHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed by Ramesh @ Kalya Kannan Pillai, praying this Court to quash and set aside the order of detention bearing no.16/PCB/Zone-II/94 dated 8/3/1994 issued by the 1st Respondent and to release the Petitioner forthwith.

(2.) SHRI Satish Sahney, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, with a view to prevent the detenu Ramesh @ Kalya Kannan Pillai from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, thought necessary to make an order of detention and accordingly passed an order dated 8/3/1994 in Reference No.DO No.16/PCB/Zone-II/94, directing him to be detained under the National Security Act, 1980 read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No.NAS 2394/1/SPL-3(B) dated 28/1/1994. On the same day, the Commissioner of Police passed another order directing that the Detenu shall be detained in the Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik, under the conditions laid down in the National Security (Conditions of detention)(Maharashtra) Order,1980.

(3.) LET us first examine the first contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Tripathi. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the 1st incident was on 24/3/1993 and in respect of which a case has been registered under sections 392 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The second incident was on 10/5/1993 and in respect of which a complaint has been registered under sections 394,397,452 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of Gamdevi Police Station under C.R.No.411/93. The detenu and his associates were arrested on 10/5/1993 and they were released on bail on 10/7/1993. Proposals were sent by the Sponsoring Authority on 23/7/1993, but however the order of detention came to be passed only on 8/3/1994. Pointing out these relevant dates, Mr.Tripathi, would submit that there was an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention as late as after about ten months of the last incident and after about eight months after the detenu availing the bail. He would further submit that if the alleged activities should have taken prompt and expeditious preventive act, but as a result of gross delay in passing the order,'the live and proximate link' has snapped.