BHAGWAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pannuram son of Shri Ramswaroop Rajput, Phoola Ram alias Poola son of Shri Sant Lal Rajput and Kashmirilal son of Shri Ghamandi Ram Rajput were arrested in case NIB No. 2/1989 on 20 5.1989 under section 8/18 and 9(6) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. Challan against them was filed in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad with the report dated 16.8.1989. They were in judicial custody when orders dated 13.9 1989 (Annexures 3 to 5) were passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India (respondent No. 3) under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (the Act), stating that it was necessary to detain the detenues with a view to prevent them from engaging in purchase, transportation and concealment of narcotic drugs and directing that they be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Ajmer. The detention orders were served on the detenues in Jail and they stood detained under the Act with effect from 21.9.1989, under the custody of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ajmer (respondent No.5), Vide memo dated 12.10.1989 (Annexure 6), the matter was placed before he Advisory Board (respondent No. 4) and after the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under section 9(f) of the Act, confirmed the earlier detention and directed that each one of the detenue should be detained for a period of one year from the date of his original detention. The communication to this effect was sent to the detenues vide memos dated 14.12.1989 (Annexures 7 to 9), signed by under Secretary to the Government of India (respondent No. 2). Petitioner Bhagwan who claims to be the brother of detenue Pannuram and a close relative of other two detenues, filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court on 24.1.1990 stating that the detention orders had been passed arbitrarily and that the detention of the detenues is illegal and liable to be set aside. It was, thus, prayed that the detention orders be quashed and the detenues be ordered to be released forthwith.

(2.) Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents. Inspite of opportunities, no return has been filed on behalf of either of the respondents.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.