(1.) GURMEJ Singh petitioner was arrested by Amritsar Police on June 4,1988 in connection with First Information Report No. 24 dated February 4, 1988 registered against him at Police Station, Khalra, district Amritsar. While the petitioner was in judicial custody and was lodged in Central Jail, Amritsar, respondent No. 2 District Magistrate, Amritsar, served upon him detention order No. MA 6385 dated June 27, 1988. Detention order is Annexure p. I and the grounds on which it is based are Annexure p.1/A. Vide, Criminal Writ No. 1392 of 1998 the petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the order aforesaid on the grounds that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is only mechanical contradistinguished from genuine or and real and that the representation filed by the petitioner against it was not disposed of by the competent authority within the prescribed period.
(2.) IT was stated by the respondents in reply that the representation dated July 27, 1988 filed by the petitioner against his detention was rejected by the State on August 23, :1988 and that the order of detention was passed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner because the petitioner was taking steps to get himself released. from, the custody and that there was likelihood of his indulging in prejudicial activities after release.
(3.) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after his arrest on June 4, 1988 to the date of the impugned orders viz. June 27, 1988 the petitioner did not apply for his release on bail and as such assertion made by, the detaining authority in its order Annexure P.1 of the petitioner having done so or likelihood of his securing a release through it are all faked and mechanical. Learned counsel for he respondents has not been able to controvert this allegation nor has either of the two respondents referred to any corroborative evidence to substantiate their assertion in this behalf in the order of detention. In Kanchanlal Maneklal Chokshi v. State of-Gujrat and others, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1945, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed :-