LIANCHHUNGA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Rules Nos. 158 (H.C.), 159 (H. C.) and 160 (H.C.) of 1990 can be disposed of by a common judgment. Lianchhunga, Lalzawna and Liantluanga are respectively the petitioners in Civil Rule Nos. 158 (H.C.), 159 (RC.) and 160 (H.C.) of 1990. The petitioners in all these cases have challenged the orders of detention dated 27-9-1989.

(2.) Facts - The petitioners were detained in the Central Jail Aizwal under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, the Act for short by an order dated 14/6/1989. Subsequently, the order of detention was revoked by the Government of Mizoram under an order dated 27/9/1989. Immediately after the order of detention was revoked, the petitioners were detained under an order dated 27/9/1989 under the said Act. The petitioners have questioned the second order of detention dated 27/9/1989. The common feature in all these cases is that the grounds of detention are exactly the same.

(3.) The order dated 27/9/1989 revoking the earlier order of detention and record produced before us do not disclose why the orders of detention were revoked. What is stated in the Counter - Affidavit is that the order of detention was revoked for some procedural omission. What omissions were, we are not informed. The order of revocation was made in exercise of power under Section 12 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of revocation is a statutory order made by a statutory functionary. In Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas the Supreme Court has held that orders made in exercise of statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of the explanations subsequently given by the officer making of the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do so. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the order of revocation cannot be explained subsequently in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.