MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VALIDITY of detention order Annexure P-1 dated 22.9.1988 based on grounds of detention Annexure P-2 has been assailed by detenu-petitioner Manjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh on the grounds that the petitioner being already in detention with effect from 3.7.1988 there was absolutely no justification with the Detaining Authority to clamp the order of detention upon him 2-1/2 months thereafter, that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of two weeks from 27.10.1988 to 11.11.1988 in the disposal of the representation filed by the detenu which vitiated the detention in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and that the police report forming the basis of the grounds of detention Annexure P-2 was never supplied to the petitioner.

(2.) IN replies, separately filed by the State Government of Punjab and the District Magistrate, Amritsar, it was asserted that preventive jurisdiction vested in the Detaining Authority was exercised for compelling reasons set out in the detention order itself with full knowledge of the fact of detenu-petitioner being already in punitive custody with effect from 3.7.1988, that the representation filed by the petitioner was disposed of promptly and with due expedition in accordance with the dictum of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and that copies of all documents considered by the Detaining Authority, while making the order of detention were duly supplied to the petitioner; who later filed a detailed representation in which it was not stated by him as now alleged that he was in any way prevented from filing an effective representation on this score. Hence, the writ merits dismissal. I have heard Shri H.S. Mattewal, Senior advocate, with Shri Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner; Shri S.S. Saron, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents; and have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case. All the three pleas raised by Shri H.S. Mattewal, Senior Advocate against the validity of the impugned order of detention, would be discussed hereinafter ad seriatim.

(3.) IN the present case, compelling reasons for doing so have been set out by the Detaining Authority in the order of detention Annexure P-1 which read :-