KAILASH BHAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions raise an interesting and important question with regard to the maintainability/continuance of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the case of preventive detention even after the period of detention is over if the detenu is likely to be visited with civil or other consequences to his detriment under the provisions flowing from detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-tropic Substances Act, 1988.

(2.) FOR the purposes of this decision, reference is being made to the facts stated in writ Petition No. 2899 of 2007 unless stated otherwise, as both the petitions proceed on similar contentions and are based on very similar facts except that in the case of detenu nikku Singh, an application was made for his release on bail, which was dismissed by order dated 12. 5. 2006 while in the case of detenu Shyamsundar, no such application was made till the passing of the order of detention dated 27th December, 2006. Both the petitions are, therefore, being decided by this common order.

(3.) THE wives of the two detenus have challenged the order of detention (Annexure-A)dated 27th December, 2006 passed by the 2nd respondent-Joint Secretary to the Government of India in purported exercise of the power granted by Section 3 (1) of the prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In pursuance of the said order, grounds were simultaneously served on the detenu stating that both the detenus were found in possession of 23. 700 kilograms of opium, which they were transporting in a jeep. It is not disputed that a case under the provisions of narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances act, 1985 was registered for the substantive offence and the detenus were in judicial custody in respect of the said offence ever since their arrest on 12. 4. 2006. Since the order was passed on 27. 12. 2006 and served on the detenu, as late as on 23. 1. 2007, although both the detenus were in custody, and the order could have been served on the same day or soon thereafter, delay in effecting service from the date of the order till its actual service, has not been explained.