ASSA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Assa Singh has been detained under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide an order of the State Government dated January 3, 1986 (Annexure P.1). Initially he was detained for a period of one year. However, subsequently vide an order dated August 14, 1986 (Annexure P.2) the period of detention was enhanced to two years on the opinion of the Advisory Board. He has assailed the validity of the detention in this writ petition.

(2.) THE detention order Annexure P.1 indicates that the petitioner was allegedly indulging in smuggling of goods in the months of November and December, 1984. The detention order was passed more than one year therafter on January 3, 1986 and it is, therefore, contended that there is no nexus between the petitioner's activities and the impugned order of detention. The reply of the State Government in this respect is that the nexus between the prejudicial activities of the petitioner and the detention order remained alive till the passing of the detention order and the delay was occasioned because of non-availability of the petitioner's associates for a long period whose interrogation was necessary to come to a conclusion whether it was a fit case in which the petitioner should be detained under the Act. It is said that only after the link material was obtained, the District Authorities sponsored the case on November 26, 1985 and in pursuance thereof the impugned detention order was passed. I am satisfied from this explanation that the matter was examined thoroughly and the detaining authority applied its mind fully and satisfactorily to the question whether the petitioner should be detained under the Act. The delay in the making of the order of detention was not occasioned by any laxity of the part of the State Government but was the result of a full and detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. I am, therefore, unable to hold that there was any unexplained delay on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order. The impugned order (Annexure P.1) is consequently upheld.

(3.) IN the instant case it is not disputed that the material in support of the declaration of continued detention under Section 9(1) was never supplied to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was deprived of his right to make an effective representation before the Advisory Board to say that there did not exist sufficient cause for his continued detention. For aforesaid reasons, the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Act for a period of one year (Annexure P.1) is upheld but the subsequent order of continued detention for two years (Annexure P.2) is quashed. This petition is disposed of in these terms. Petition disposed of.