AJAY BUDHIRAJA Vs. UNION TERRITORY. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL writ petition No. 1768 of 1989, has been filed by Ajay Budhiraja for quashing the detention order bearing No. 16/3/9/88- H. II (5) 17594 dated August 12, 1988, on the grounds that the impugned order was passed by the detaining authority in a mechanical manner without application of mind; that the incident was of 25th May, 1088, while the detention order was made on 12th August, 1988, nearly six months thereafter that the factum of the petitioner having denied the recovery of smuggled goods and obtained an order for his release on bail was not in the knowledge of the detaining authority while making the impugned order; that the impugned order could not be made by the Home Secretary in the name of administrator, Union Territory Chandigarh; that the detention of the petitioner was not reported to the Central Government within seven days and that the case was not referred to the Advisory Board within three weeks after 12th August, 1988.

(2.) UNION Territory Administration Chandigarh urged in reply that the detention order as also the ground of detention have not been served upon the petitioner because he is absconding since 12th August, 1988, that without knowledge of the contents thereof, all the allegations made by the petitioner are hypothetical and without basis and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner merits dismissal on this score alone.

(3.) THE sole point being considered in this writ petition in regarding its maintainability without the detention order as also the ground of detention being served on the petitioner and the petitioner being actually detained with reference thereto. The remaining grounds urged for quashing the detention order Annexure P-1 dated 12th August, 1988 have been duly dealt with in Crl. W. P. No. 1650 of 1988 filed by Mela Ram father of the petitioner which was decided on 7th November, 1988. Decision therein as also the reasons for it, incorporated in the judgment aforesaid, would be treated as part of this order because this writ is also based on the recovery of smuggled goods allegedly made by the customs department from the premises of the petitioner and his father on 25th February, 1988.