SARABJEET SINGH MOKHA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the detention order dtd. 11/5/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed under National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), its extension by order dtd. 5/7/2021 (Annexure P/1A) and also the order dtd. 5/7/2021 passed by Central Government whereby the representation of petitioner was rejected. This matter was analogously heard with WP No.10177/2021 (Devesh Chourasia vs. State of MP). The petitioner was running a hospital whereas Devesh Chourasia was working in the pharmaceutical wing of the said hospital.

(2.) The stand of petitioner as canvassed by learned Senior Counsel is that he is running a hospital. As per the detention order, police received certain informations regarding blacklisting and misuse of Remdesivir injections on 8/5/2021. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the petitioner on 10/5/2021. The petitioner was detained pursuant to order dtd. 11/5/2021 on 12/5/2021. On 13/5/2021 (Annexure R/2), the State government approved the order of detention and send necessary information to the Central Government. The petitioner preferred detailed representation under the NSA on 18/5/2021. The Advisory Board affirmed the order of detention on 29/6/2021. The present writ petition was filed on 3/7/2021. After getting the rejection order of Central Government dtd. 5/7/2021, the petition was duly amended by assailing the order of extension and the rejection order.

(3.) Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Sr.Counsel assisted by Shri Pankaj Dubey contended that the detention order is passed without there being any cogent material. A stale incident of 2004 became reason for passing the order of detention. The petitioner stood acquitted on merits in the said case of 2004 mentioned in the detention order. For the reasons best known to the learned District Magistrate, he gave a strange and unacceptable finding that it is because of petitioner's financial influence that he got a judgment in his favour in the said case of 2004. By placing reliance on (2018) 9 SCC 562 [Hetchin Haokip Vs. State of Manipur and Ors.), (2018) 12 SCC 150 [Sama Aruna Vs. State of Telangana and another] and (2020) 13 SCC 632 [Khaja Bilai Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana and Ors.], learned Sr. Counsel contended that the past record must have a live and proximate link with the reason of detention. Otherwise, such stale material/case cannot be a basis for passing the detention order. The reference is made to the judgment of Hetchin Haokip (supra) for yet another reason. It is submitted that there exists an unexplained delay in reporting the detention order to the State Government. The language of Sec.3(4) and 8 of NSA shows that the law makers have used the word "forthwith" with an intention that order of detention must be communicated to the State government with quite promptitude. For the same purpose, a division bench judgment of this Court in WP No.1118/2021 (Anshul Jain Vs. State) is relied upon. In the instant case, there is an unexplained delay in communicating the detention order to the government which vitiates the order of detention.