ANOOP SINGH Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing detention order No.1/16/94-3HIII-(COFEPOSA)/278 dated 11-2-1994 (Annexure P-1) and grounds of detention dated 11.2.1994 passed by respondents No.1 against the petitioner.

(2.) IN brief, the facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner, who is resident of village Varpal District Amritsar, was arrested on 22.8.1993 under Section 104(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, The Act) by the Customs Authorities. While the petitioner was in judicial custody, he was served with the following detention order along with grounds of detention :-

(3.) WHEN the matter initially came up for hearing on 14.7.1994, finding contradiction in the written statement filed by the respondents with regard to forwarding of representation of the petitioner to the Central Government, a direction was issued to the concerned respondents to file an affidavit for clarifying as to when and how the representation was sent to the Central Government and who received the representation on behalf of the Central Government. In pursuance of order dated 14.7.1994, Ms.Amrita Atwal, Deputy Secretary, Home, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Chandigarh, has filed an affidavit dated 25.7.1994, in which it has been stated that it was wrongly mentioned in the original written statement that representation was forwarded to the Central Government, whereas the same has not been forwarded. She has further stated that "the word 'not' in between words has and forwarded was inadvertently missed during tying and there was no intention on the part of the answering respondent for mis-statement. Omission is deeply regretted". In view of this additional affidavit, it now stands admitted by respondent No.1 that representation was received in which a request was received from the petitioner that copy of his representation be forwarded to the Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that order of detention is liable to be quashed on all grounds taken in the petition. Mainly, he relied upon the third argument and in support of the same, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rattan Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1982 SC 1.