SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Surjit Singh was detained pursuant to an order of detention issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (For Short the Act) which according to the petition was dated 23.1.1987, but according to the reply filed on behalf of the State of Punjab was made on 22.1.1987. Copy of the order placed in the relevant file of the department, however, is dated 27.1.1987. In the given situation, I shall be referring to the same as detention order. The petitioner has impugned the said detention order through this writ petition and has claimed that the same be quashed mainly on three grounds viz; no copy of the detention order was supplied to him; that the same was not issued by a competent authority, having been signed by an Under Secretary of the State Government; and that there was no rational nexus between the incidents relied on and the subjective satisfaction arrived at as well as lack of proximity between said satisfaction and actual detention.

(2.) THE first contention cannot hold good in view of Annexure R-1, which shows that a copy of the detention order was received by detenu Surjit Singh. A receipt to that effect under his thumb impression is provided in form A therein. The learned counsel for the State has placed the relevant file before me and it contains the original of Exhibit R 1 with clear thumb impression of petitioner Surjit Singh. It is dated 12.6.1987 the admitted date of his detention under the detention order. It also contains certificate of Joginder Singh, DSP, Patti with regard thereto.

(3.) HOWEVER , there appears to be merit in the last contention of the petitioner and clearly it is a case of lack of proximity in time to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied on, the satisfaction arrived at and actual detention by which alone the order stands executed so as to achieve the purpose of prevention of prejudicial activities for which purpose preventive detention has been directed under the Act. The grounds of detention are provided in Annexure P2 and the last incident as per grounds of detention, admittedly, took place on 14.5.1986. If the detention order was passed on 22.1.1987 or thereafter, obviously the same was made after more than eight months. The order of detention was served on the petitioner, as per admission in the written statement filed by way of an affidavit of Shri V.V. Chadha, Under Secretary, Government of Punjab Home Department, Chandigarh, the officer who authenticated the detention order on behalf of the State Government, on 12.6.1987, when he was in judicial custody. Thus the order of detention was served after about five months of passing of the detention order. No explanation whatsoever for the delay, which is responsible for breaking the proximity in time, is forthcoming. No doubt merits of the facts, to which reference has been made in the petition cannot be sifted by the Courts in such cases. When the Legislature has made only the objective satisfaction of the authority making the order of detention, it is not for the Court to question whether the grounds given in the order are sufficient or not for the subjective satisfaction of the authority. But the State was required to explain with regard to inordinate delay which can always create doubts with regard to the genuineness of the alleged subjective satisfaction. When the State is called upon to answer a rule issued on a petition in a writ of habeas corpus, it is the obligation of the State or the detaining authority for making its return to the rule in such a case to place all the relevant facts before the Court and if there is any delay in making the order of detention or in arresting the detenu which is prima facie unreasonable, the State must give reasons explaining the delay. The delay of more than eight months particularly when it remains unexplained shall have to be treated as unreasonable and is bound to prove fatal. In the case of Laxman Khatik v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 1264, it was held that delay of seven months or making an order for detention after the incidents which led to the making of that order, was fatal. In Sk. Serajul v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 1517, it was held that when there is undue delay after the alleged incidents before order of detention was passed and again after the order of detention and before actual arrest of detenu, Court can doubt genuineness of the alleged subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as to the necessity of detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in prejudicial manner.