MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANOJ Kumar Sharma alias Goga of Phagwara District Kapurthala has moved the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention order dated 16.3.1993 issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Annexure P-1).

(2.) THE petitioner has averred that the alleged pre-judicial activities pertained to 4.12.1992 whereas the impugned order has been passed on 16th of March, 1993 and there was no nexus between the alleged pre-judicial activities and the impugned order of detention; that the petitioner had been on bail since 8.12.1992 and there was no allegation that the petitioner indulged in any particular activity regarding sale or purchase of foreign currency during the aforesaid period and the impugned order has been passed only to thwart the order of bail; that earlier the order of detention was passed against Ashok Kumar a brother of the petitioner whose premises were raised. and it has been quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 491 of 1992.

(3.) SHRI R.S. Ghai the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that writ petition No. 118 of 1994 in respect of Ashok Kumar brother of the petitioner whose residential premises were searched on 4.11.1992, has been accepted and the detention order has been set-aside on 6.5.1994 and this judgment is reported as Ashok Kumar alias Shoki v. Union of India, 1994(2) RCR 708 and where the detention order against the co-accused has been set-aside there shall be no justification that the impugned order should remain hanging against the petitioner. In support of this contention the learned counsel has referred to Avinash Chander v. Union of India and another, 1990(2) Recent C.R. 358, where the detention order passed against brother on similar grounds had been quashed it was observed that there was no logic in conducing that the present petition was not maintainable. This plea could not be controverted here by the learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India. In Trilok Nath Mittal v. Union of India and others, 1994(2) C.C. Cases 125 (HC), referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was observed that where detention order passed against another co-accused was quashed as in the case now in hand inasmuch the premises pertained to the brother there appeared to be no reason why this petition should not be considered on the same footing.