HARNEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER of detention passed against the petitioner Harnek Singh by District Magistrate, Ludhiana, on April 28, 1988 was revoked on May 9, 1988. Another order of detention was passed against the petitioner on the same day by the President of India which is Annexure P. 2. The petitioner has filed Cr. W.P. No. 1101 of 1988 for quashing it on the ground that the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner without the detaining authority being satisfied that there was any likelihood of the petitioner indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of the State contra-distinguished from breaches of law for which criminal cases have already been registered against the petitioner r and are pending trial against him, that the detention case of the petitioner has not been placed before the Advisory Committee within the prescribed period after compliance of the legal procedure and that no new facts are alleged to have occurred after the revocation of the earlier order justifying the making of the new order dated May 9, 1988 against the petitioner.

(2.) THE grounds obtaining in Annexure P.3 for making the impugned order Annexure P.2 are the same on which previous detention order dated April 28, 1988 was passed against the petitioner. The activities smell out therein constitute only a breach of law contradistinguished from a breach of the public order justifying the issuance of a fresh order of detention. Relevant para 4 of the new detention order Annexure P.2 reads :-

(3.) IT has been urged in para 15 of the reply. The contents of the sub-para are wrong and hence denied. The detention case of the petitioner has already been referred to the Advisory Board on 25.5.1988 within the stipulated period of four months and three weeks as provided for under section 10 read with section 14-A(2) of the National Security Act and the report of the Advisory Board is awaited. There is thus no merit in this contention of the petitioner. Detention case of the petitioner has been duly referred to the Advisory Board within prescribed period.