GHULAM MOHAMAD BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for writ of Habeas Corpus, the detention order passed against Ahmad Din Bhat s/o Rahman Bhat R/o Maheen Tangmarg u/S. 8 of the J. and K. Public Safety Act, hereinafter referred to as Act, has been challenged on various grounds, as enumerated therein.

(2.) Despite ample opportunity granted to the respondents, the reply affidavit was not filed within the stipulated time. It was no doubt filed but after the stipulated time and without seeking any permission from the Court in this behalf. Even an application has not been filed by the respondents seeking condonation of delay for filing the same. In this view of the matter, the counter filed by the respondents cannot be read against the petitioner, as it may cause prejudice to the detenue.

(3.) The L/c for the petitioner advanced his arguments as far back as on 26-8-1991. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents had sought time to advance his arguments. Last of all when the case was taken up for hearing on 6-2-1991, the concerned Govt. Advocate was not availab1e on his behalf, Mr. Kotwal appeared and sought one week's time. After one week when the case was listed for hearing on 18-2-92 the concerned Govt. Advocate did not appear to argue the case on that date also. For him Mr. Mansotra G.A., appeared and prayed for another adjournment which was not granted. This being a Habeas Corpus matter and the petitioner's counsel having finished his arguments about six months back, its disposal could not brook any delay. In that view of the matter the case was reserved for judgment. However Mr. Mansotra was directed to produce the record pertaining to the detention of the detenu within the course of that week. He has failed to produce the said record also.