KAILASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both these writ petitions involve identical questions of law, we have accepted the request of the learned Counsel for the parties to decide them by this common judgment.

(2.) IN both the writ petitions the petitioners have not been arrested so far and the detention order has not been served upon them. It appears that earlier they filed another writ petition against the detention order dated 22nd October, 1986 under provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (here in after referred to as the Act). The earlier writ petitions were also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Stay order was obtained in that writ petition and on account of that, detention orders were not served. Thereafter those writ petitions were withdrawn. No liberty was granted to the petitioners to file fresh writ petition in those writ petitions. After the withdrawal of the writ petitions, for 5 -6 months according to the respondents, the petitioners remained under -ground and detention order could not be served upon them. Thereafter the present writ petitions have been filed. These writ petitions have been filed in the month of March, 1987 and on July 10, 1987 an order was passed that warrants of arrest shall not be executed for a period of one week. Thereafter this order continued by virtue of an order dated 24th July, 1987.

(3.) THE net result of the above factual and historical narration is that the detention order earlier passed on 24th October, 1986 could not be served and we are now at the end of December 1987. In our opinion this by itself tantamounts to serious abuse of process of law and, the questionable conduct of the petitioners is sufficient to reject these writ petitions as even today, the petitioners want to have the opinion of the Court first regarding the validity of the detention and refuse to surrender when the Court directed (hem to do so. In our opinion, in the matter of detention under the laws enacted by the Parliament, for detaining the persons unless there are extra -ordinary abnormal circumstances no writ petition could be entertained without the detenue surrendering to the detention order.