LAWS(P&H)-1995-4-37

GULZAR SINGH ALIAS KALU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 22, 1995
GULZAR SINGH ALIAS KALU Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GULZAR Singh alias Kalu through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside Order No. F. 673/85/93-Cus-VIII dt. 17. 8. 1993 passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THERE are number of grounds asking for setting aside order Annexure P-1 dated 17. 8. 1993 but Mr. Ghai, Sr. Advocate ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner being sure of the success of the case on the score that there is an unexplained delay in executing the order of detention throwing considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the necessity to detain the petitioner, has chosen to press this solitary point for setting aside the order of detention Annexure P-1.

(3.) COMING to the facts of this case, not a single word is mentioned in the entire written statement as to what efforts were taken from 17. 8. 1993 upto the date when proceedings under Section 7 (1) (b) of the Act were initiated or from the date of order of detention till such time the petitioner was actually arrested. There is certainly a delay of about 8 months in passing the order under Section 7 (1) (b) of the Act and as observed above, nothing is mentioned as to what steps were taken to arrest the petitioner who is stated to be absconding. The facts of P. U. Iqbal's case (supra) do reveal some efforts on the part of the police officer to secure the arrest of the petitioner in that case but in the present case, it appears from the contents of the written statement that no steps at all were taken but for passing of order under Section 7 (1) of the Act on 27. 4. 1994. Under what circumstances the order under Section 7 (1) was passed and what were the details of proceedings is also not made known to Court and it is rather strange to note that it has been mentioned in the written statement that such details may be given by the office of the detaining authority.