SUKHDEV SINGH @ SUKHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUKHDEV Singh alias Sukha by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the quashing of the detention order No. 4/3/91-3HIII/480 dated 21.3.1991, along with grounds of detention, Annexure P1 and the confirmation order No. 4/3/91-3HIII(P1 INDPS) 1796 dated, Chandigarh, the 26.9.1991, Annexure P3.

(2.) THE facts on the basis of which the petitioner has been ordered to be detained may be gathered from grounds of detention Annexure P1.

(3.) THE petitioner took a number of pleas to challenge the impugned detention order which are contained in the petition. Sh. A.S. Sandhu, learned counsel has however confined his arguments to only two aspects, first, that there was a delay in the initiation of proposal for detention and the delay in passing the order of detention and secondly, with respect to the delay in execution of the order. Sh. Sandhu has urged that the 'prejudicial activity' for which petitioner was liable related to 22.7.1990 and also with respect to the activity which took place on 27.5.1990 when his brother Maluk Singh was arrested, along with opium, while the petitioner was claimed to have escaped. No proposal was initiated at that stage. As per return filed by the respondent-authorities, it was only on 1.1.1991 that the proposal was examined by the legal agency which continued examining the same till 8.1.1991 (the dated of initiation of the proposal is, however, not given. It is, however, claimed that the proposal was initiated after collecting the entire material). Further information was called from the sponsoring authority vide Government letter dated 10.1.1991. The ground of detention were prepared and translated; supporting material was also typed and the case was then examined on 7.3.1991. The proposal was ultimately sent to the State Law Department on 8.3.1991, where, it remained under examination till 13.3.1991 and the detention order was ultimately passed on 21.3.1991. The petitioner was detained on 28.6.1991. The order could not be served on him earlier, as the petitioner was playing hide and seek with the Police.