PRITPAL SINGH,J - (1.) THE petitioner Hira Singh alias Hiru was arrested on October 24, 1984 in connection with F.I.R. No. 354 dated August 7, 1984 registered at Police Station, Lopoke, under Sections 307, 411 and 414, Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act. He was interrogated on October 26, 1984 and he disclosed that he had been involved in smuggling of goods from March 1984 to October, 1984. Detention order under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, dated August 31, 1985 (Annexure P.1) was passed by the State Government in pursuance of which he was put under preventive detention. In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the detention order and has prayed that he may be released from detention forthwith.
(2.) IT is not disputed that the last activity of smuggling was allegedly performed by the petitioner on October 1984 which was brought to the notice of the District Authorities during his interrogation on October 26, 1984. On the basis of these activities the detention order was passed about 10 months thereafter on August 31, 1985. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no proximity between his last alleged activity and the order of detention because of the unexplained delay between the two which indicates that there is no nexus between the alleged activities and the passing of the detention order. The State Government has explained the delay by stating in the return that the proposal of detention was sponsored by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, only on April 30, 1985, which was received by the State Government on May 3, 1985. There is however, no explanation also to why the District Authorities took about six months to sponsor the proposal of detention. After the proposal was received on May 3, 1985, it was returned to the District Authorities for some clarifications. The reply was received on July 8, 1985, i.e. after a lapse of more than two months. No explanation has been offered for this delay. It is said that thereafter the proposal was again examined by the State Government and then the detention order was passed on August 31, 1985. Again no adequate explanation has been offered for spending more than 1-1/2 months in examining the proposal for the second time. Thus, it remains unexplained as to why the District Authorities did not think of initiating the proceedings under the Act against the petitioner for such a long time despite having all the necessary information and material. Even after the sponsoring of the proposal by the District Authorities the State Government did not deal with the matter promptly and without any reasonable explanation delayed passing of the order for more than 1-1/2 months. It has been time and again ruled by the Supreme Court that when there is unexpected delay between the passing of the detention order and alleged activities of the detenu it can be assumed that there was no rational subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority for passing the order. Amongst other judgments the Supreme Court took this view in Jagan Nath Biswas v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1516; Lakshman Khatik v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1264, and Harnek Singh v. The State of Punjab and others, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 682. In the present case there is no adequate explanation for the delay of about 10 months between the date of the last activity of the petitioner and the passing of the impugned order. Therefore, the order appears to be punitive rather than preventive. On this ground alone the detention order passed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE petitioner is entitled to succeed on another ground also that there was explained delay in the disposal of the petitioner's representation. It is well settled by a large number of judgments of the Supreme Court that the delay in the disposal of the representation made by a detenu which has not been sufficiently explained is by itself a sufficient ground for holding that the order of detention is illegal. This view was taken by the Supreme Court in Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 675; Prof. K.I. Singh v. State of Manipur, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 438; B.N. Chunakar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1198; K.L. Bose v. State of W.B., AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1623 and Ranjit Dass v. State of W.B., AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1753.;