- (1.) This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 164, 165 and 171 of 2006 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals which have been preferred by the Union of India and its Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence at Ludhiana. While LPA No. 164 of 2006 is directed against the order dated 25th October, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1037 of 2003, LPA No. 165 of 2006 questions the order dated 29th May, 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on Appellant No. 2. LPA No. 171 of 2006 also assails the same order dated 29th May, 2006 of the learned Single Judge to the extent that no orders on the objections dated 7th February, 2006 filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence against the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, have been passed by the learned Single Judge. For brevity, the facts are taken from LPA No. 164 of 2006.
(2.) A Telegram addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, sent by Smt. Madhu Garg, resident of Ludhiana alleging that her husband--Vinod Garg who was there at their residence in Roop Nagar, Delhi and was in contact with her telephonically till 11 A.M., was picked up by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Staff, Delhi" on Saturday, 23rd August, 2003 and his whereabouts were not known, having been treated as Criminal Writ Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, notice was issued to (i) the Union of India; (ii) the Joint Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (RU), Ludhiana and (iii) Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. The record reveals that another telegram received from Smt. Rakesh Garg, resident of ludhiana, alleging that her husband--Narsi Dass Garg (brother of Vinod Garg) was also arrested without any warrants by the Staff of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as "the DRI"), was also treated as Criminal Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2003.
(3.) While Criminal Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2003 (Smt. Rakesh Garg v. State of Punjab and Ors.) was disposed of on 16th December, 2003 as having become infructuous after taking notice of the fact that the Petitioner's husband was neither kidnapped nor detained in illegal custody, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1037 of 2003 remained pending as it was only on 12th January, 2005 that by the learned Counsel for the State of Punjab made a statement that no allegations had been levelled against the Punjab Police and the matter pertained to the DRI Staff at Delhi. Notice was accordingly issued to the DRI, Delhi and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, followed by fresh notices issued to the DRI, Delhi and to the Assistant Solicitor General of India at Chandigarh on 22nd March, 2005. On 11th August, 2005 an officer of the Delhi Police informed that they have not arrested any one named Vinod Garg. This Court, after observing that the said Vinod Garg might have been arrested by the DRI, adjourned the case for filing of the counter-affidavit. Meanwhile, the Respondent-writ Petitioner filed a detailed Criminal Misc. Application No. 379 of 2005 seeking certain directions, though, no counter-affidavit to the main petition was filed on behalf of the DRI.;