JATINDER SINGH PANNU Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under, Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the production of the alleged detenu was filed in this Court. According to rule 10 of the Rules made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition was listed before a learned single Judge who consequently issued a roving writ for execution through a Warrant Officer appointed by this Court. The Warrant Officer made report and the respondents filed their affidavits. The detenu also filed his affidavit before the learned single Judge.

(2.) AS it appears from the referring order dated 22nd July 1980, the learned single Judge has not decided the petition for writ of habeas corpus one way or the other. On the basis of facts brought to the notice of the learned single Judge through the report of the Warrant Officer and affidavits it was observed as under :

(3.) THE petition for habeas corpus has not been decided by the learned single Judge. It will be after the decision of this petition, one way or the other that the question of initiating some action for criminal contempt against some-one will come up for consideration. If after decision of this petition for the habeas corpus the learned Judge forms the view that action for committing criminal contempt has to be commenced then he may, in view of a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Court on its own Motion v. Kashmiri Lal and ors., AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 72, issue notice. After the observations of the Single bench the notice can also be issued by a Division Bench in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Without the decision of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, which does not involve any point of law requiring decision from a larger Bench, the matter cannot be referred to Division Bench.