VIRSA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In criminal writ petition No 231 of 1989 validity of detention order dated 17-11- 1988 based on grounds of detention Annexure P. 2 has been questioned by the detenu petitioner Virsa Singh on the grounds that it was not passed by the detaining authority on due application of mind to the peculiar circumstances obtaining in the present case in regard to the detenu-petitioner as also his co-accused Santokh Singh having both been released on bail in case F.I.R. No 101 dated 15-5-1988 on 30-7-1988, that the impugned order of detention is not based on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, that the detaining authority could not make the order of detention on a solitary prejudicial act attributed to the detenu petitioner, that there was no nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu petitioner and the order of detention which was made seven months thereafter and that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered by the appropriate authority with due promptitude as envisaged in Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

(2.) In reply, the factum of the petitioner as also his co-accused Santokh Singh having been released on bail was admitted. It was, however, asserted that the representation dated 29-1-1989 was on careful consideration rejected by the State Government with due promptitude on 17-2-1989 and the petitioner apprised of it through the Superintendent Jail, Amritsar, on 23-2-1989, that there was close nexus between the prejudicial activities and the detention order Annexure P.1 and the time lag of seven months in between the two occurred because the Customs Authorities took their own time in initiating the proposal for preventive detention of the petitioner and that the impugned order of detention was passed by the detaining authority after due application of mind and on its subjective satisfaction. Hence, the writ merits dismissal.

(3.) I have heard Shri H.S. Mattewal, Senior Advocate, with Shri Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner; and Shri S.S. Saron, AAG, Punjab, for the respondents, and carefully perused the relevant record.