Mool Shankar Gandhi vs Union Of India And Ors
1995 Latest Caselaw 35 Del

JUDGMENT

M. Jagannatha Rao, C.J.

(1) This writ petition was filed on 12th May, 1994, for issue of a direction that the respondents may be directed to place on record the impugned order of detention, the grounds of detention, list of documents and the documents which have been relied upon by the detaining authority for the purpose of passing the order of detention and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature thereof to quash the impugned order of detention

(2) The writ petition was filed.at the pre-detention stage. The law in relation to pre-detention case is well settled and has been explained by the Supreme Court in Alka Subhash Gadia -JT 1991 (1) S.C.C. 549. Thereafter, there have been five or six other cases decided by the Supreme Court in relation to pre-detention cases. These judgments of the Supreme Court were considered in a 'recent Full Bench of this Court in Mansukh Chhagan Lal Bhatt Vs. Uoi & Ors. in Criminal Writ Petition No.222/1994 decided on 20th October, 1994 (since . It has been held in the Full Bench decision after an elaborate consideration of the law, that delay in the issuance of the detention order as well as the delay in the execution of the detention order do come within the principles laid down in Alka Subhash Gadia's case (supra).

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner agrees that in view of the Full Bench decision, the said questions cannot be raised before the Division Bench. Learned Counsel also argues that the release of codetenues connected with the same transaction is not a ground for release of the petitioner and for quashing the order of detention so far as the petitioner is concerned in view of what is stated in the Full Bench decision read with the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh's case - 1994 (2) Scale 747.

(4) However, learned counsel submits that the grounds of detention are ir- relevant and that this is clear from the fact that the allegations made by the petitioner is regard to the alleged irrelevancy of the grounds have not been denied by the respondents in their reply.

(5) In this connection, we may point out that in Prem Singh's Case, decided by the Supreme court and followed by this Court in the Full Bench it was held that the grounds of codetenues connected with the same transaction whose cases had gone before the Advisory Board. In such a situation, we fail to see now the petitioner can come forward and call upon the respondents to affirm or deny whether the grounds in his case are irrelevant. We may also point out that after Full Bench decision came up before the Division Bench in Mansukh Chhagan Lal Bhatt Vs. Union of India & Anr. , this Court referred to'the decision of the Bombay High Court in Manoharlal Narang Vs. Union of India, wherein Sawant, J., as he then was, and Pendse, J" pointed out that it was not permissible to issue a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to produce the grounds of detention in the Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued before us that he is not asking the respondents to produce the grounds of detention, but what he is requiring the respondents is to deny the allegation that the grounds of detention, so far as the petitioner was concerned, were vague. In our view, the petitioner is merely formulating his contention in a different manner but result of the contention is that he wants the respondents to come forward and state whether, any particular ground or grounds against the petitioner was not vague. That allegation cannot be effectively answered unless the grounds are revealed. This Court cannot require the respondents to disclose the grounds of detention of petitioner. Therefore, the contention raised is not permissible in view of what is stated by the Supreme Court in Alka Subhash Gadia's case and what the Supreme Court stated regarding Manoharlal Narang's case decided by the Bombay High Court. This we have explained in Mansukh Chhagan Lal Bhatt's case after it had come before us in Division Bench, after the Full Bench case (See .

(6) For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. However, we are not restraining the petitioner from challenging the detention order as and when it is served on him.