ANIL KUMAR MAHAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DETENU -petitioner Anil Kumar Mahajan has filed Crl. Writ Petition No. 427 of 1989 in this Court for quashing the order of detention Annexure P.1 dated 20th May, 1988 based on grounds of detention Annexure P-2 on the grounds that the impugned order of detention was passed by the detaining authority mechanically without any application of mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as the petitioner was released on bail on 22.4.1981 and the factum of his having been so released did not find mention in the detention order; that the prejudicial activity attributed to the petitioner is of 22.3.1988 while the order of detention was made against him on 20.5.1988 and served on the petitioner through his detention on 8.2.1989 and as such there is no nexus between the date of prejudicial activities and the date of passing of the detention order and thereafter to the date of service of the detention order and as such the detention is punitive and not preventive; that the detention order is based on one solitary transaction of 22/23rd March, 1988 and that the representation filed by the petitioner on 4.2.1989 was not considered by the concerned authorities with due promptitude and, therefore, his detention is rendered illegal on this score as well.

(2.) IN reply it was asserted that the detention order Annexure P-1 was made by the detaining authority on due application of mind and the factum of detenu-petitioner being already on bail with effect from 22.4.1988 was duly considered therein; that there was close nexus between the prejudicial activity and the order of detention; that the order of detention, however, could not be served upon the petitioner till 8.2.1989 because detenu-petitioner was absconding earlier; that the representation dated Nil was received by the Union of India in the concerned department on 3.3.1989 and was disposed of by the Minister in the department concerned on 11.3.1989 nearly eight days after its receipt with due promptitude and that the order of detention was not based on solitary transaction of 22.3.1988 as alleged. Hence the writ merits dismissal.

(3.) A reference to para No. 7 at page 8 of the grounds of detention is sufficient to reach the conclusion that the factum of detenu-petitioner being already on bail with effect from 22.4.1988 was present to the mind of the detaining authority while making order of detention on 20.5.1988. Impugned order of detention cannot, therefore, be said to have been passed by the detaining authority without any application of its mind.