S HARPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus in respect of Harpreet Singh Detenu (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), through his father Mohinder Singh Saianwala. The Petition was preferred on May 30/31, 1985, and for one reason or the other as indicated in the orders passed from time to time by the various Benches remained pending till it was laid before this Court on September 9, 1985. On that date, the case was adjourned for two weeks at the request of the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE averments in the petition are there. The petitioner's father Mohinder Singh Sainanwala has been Member Parliament and also Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Punjab. The petitioner himself contested the Election for the Punjab Legislative Assembly on one occasion and was declared elected, but his Election was subsequently set aside on the ground that he was underage at the time of filing of the Nomination Papers. The petitioner is a Member of the Akali Party and the State Government and the District Magistrate Ferozepore, were out to nap him for the commission of some offence. On April 26, 1984, he was hauled up in a false case under sections 124 -A and 153 -A, Indian Penal Code, sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Ordinance, 1984. First Information Report No. 127, dated April 26, 1984 was registered against him in this connection at Police Station City Ferozepur. At this stage, it is apparent, and this fact is not disputed at the bars, that in the aforesaid case the petitioner was granted bail on June 21, 1984. However, he could not avail of the benefit of bail, because earlier to the grant of bail, by means of the impugned order of Detention dated May 3, 1984 (Copy Annexure P/1), the petitioner was ordered to be arrested and detained under section 3(2) read with section 3 (3) and section 14 -A of the National Security Act, 1980. The averments in the petition go on to allege that the petitioner and his family own a house in Ferozepur Cantt., which is in the occupation of the Police Department and at the instance of the petitioner's father the State Government had issued a direction to the Police Department to vacate that house, which they had not complied with. The insistence of the petitioner's father to get the house vacated had irked the officials of the Police Department at Ferozepure against the petitioner and his father. It is stated that the mala fide of the Police Department influenced the District Magistrate in impugned order of Detention.

(3.) SOME more facts in connection with the present petition have also been mentioned therein. Feeling aggrieved with the Detention Order, the petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 273 of 1984, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on December 4, 1985. At the Motion hearing, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition but with the observation that "It is upon to the petitioner to move the High Court by way of Review if so advised". In consequence of the above order, the petitioner then filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 113 of 1985 in this Court and a learned Single Judge dismissed, the same on the ground that the learned Judge deciding the earlier Writ Petition (J.M. Tandon, J.) having retired, the application for Review was not maintainable. It was, however, observed that the petitioner may move another independent Criminal Writ petition for redress of his grievance. The present Writ Petition is said to have been filed in the wake of the circumstances, noticed above.