- (1.) Customs Authorities searched House No. 260, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, occupied, by detenu-petitioner Gurdeep Singh Manchanda on 15.4.1989. It did not find anything incriminating therein. From the resiled confessional statements of Rajiv Talwar, Satpal Kapur and others, besides the petitioner himself, the Customs Authorities reached the conclusion that the petitioner had acquired U.S. Currency valued at $ 25000 and 50000 dollars and sold it to other people aforesaid. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar, released the detenu-petitioner on bail on 18.4.1989. In spite of it, the detaining authority clamped the order of detention Annexure P-1, based on grounds of detention Annexure P-2, on him on 19.5.1989, which has been assailed by detenu-petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1841 of 1989 on the grounds that the representation filed by him was not considered by the detaining authority with due promptitude and utmost expedition contemplated in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, that the impugned order of detention is based on single solitary incident of 15.4.1989; and that no compelling reasons have been set out in the detention order Annexure P-1 to order detention of the petitioner who had already been released on bail a month before it.
(2.) It was stated in reply that the representation was considered and decided in 23 days without utmost expedition; that the petitioner was indulging in illegal purchase/sale of the foreign currency on large scale and, therefore, it became necessary to detain him under preventive detention; and that the detaining authority knew on 19.5.1989 that the petitioner was on bail with effect from 18.4.1989 and still deemed it necessary to detain him in exercise of its preventive jurisdiction on the basis of its subjective satisfaction.
(3.) I have heard Shri H.S. Mattewal, Senior Advocate, with Shri Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Jai Shree Anand, Advocate for the respondents carefully gone through the relevant material-brought on record. It is stated in para 5 of the reply :- "Detenu's representation dated 1.6.1989 to President of India has been considered and turned down. The detenu has been informed accordingly vide letter dated 23.6.1989." No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming for this admitted inordinate delay of 23 days in the disposal of the representation. In Harish Pahwa V/s. State of U.P. and others, 1981 AIR(SC) 1126, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed :- "We would emphasise that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional." In this view of the matter, the order of detention gets vitiated on this score.;