Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Mukand Behari Kaushal And Anr. on 18 May, 1993
Equivalent citations: 50(1993)DLT680, 1993(26)DRJ364
JUDGMENT Sat Pal, J.
(1) In this case the petitioner has been detained pursuant to the order of detention dated 4th August, 1992 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi in exercise of powers conferred vide sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as delegated to the Commissioner of Police vide Delhi Administration order No.F.2/l/88-H.P.II, dated 13.7.1992. The aforesaid order was approved by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital of Delhi vide order dated 13th August, 1992 and it has been stated in this order that the petitioner has been detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The aforesaid order was confirmed by the Lt. Governor by order dated 7th October, 1992 and it has been stated therein that the petitioner be detained for a period of 12 months from the date of detention i.e. 4th August, 1992.
(2) The impugned orders mentioned herein above have been challenged on various grounds mentioned in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, confined his challenge on the ground mentioned in para 9 of the writ petition. In this paragraph it has been alleged that in the grounds of detention at page I, against case Fir No.7 of 1986 of Ps Alipur, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was convicted for six months whereas in fact he was acquitted in this case vide judgment dated 27th May, 1992 passed by Shri Balbir Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. Similarly, he pointed out that at page 2 against Fir No.103/ 82, Ps Roshanara, it has been stated that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for six months R.I. whereas the said conviction order was set aside vide order dated 23rd February, 1991 passed by Shri K.P.Verma, learned Additional Sessions Judge,Delhi. Another case pointed out by the learned counsel was with regard to serial No.22 Fir No-59/83 and against this case it has been mentioned that the petitioner was convicted and fined a sum of Rs.50.00 , whereas in fact the case was pending on the relevant date and ultimately the petitioner was acquitted on 23rd March, 1993 by the Court of Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Similarly, learned counsel also pointed out a case at serial No.37 Fir No.343, Ps Ashok Vihar. Against this case it has been stated that the said case is pending trial whereas in fact the petitioner in this case had already been discharged by the Court of Shri Rakesh Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi vide order dated 16th October, 1989.
(3) Relying on the above mentioned facts learned counsel submitted that it is clear case of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and, he, therefore, contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in Dharam Das Shyam Lal Aggarwal vs. The Police Commissioner, and a judgment of this Court reported in Kamla Wati vs. Union of India, 1992(1) Ccc 136.
(4) Mr. Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has not controverter the facts mentioned in para 9 of the grounds of the petition.
(5) The facts mentioned in para 9 of the grounds of petition which , not been controverter by the learned Standing Counsel for the State, clearly snow that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Dass (supra) the order of detention cannot be sustained and has to be set aside.
(6) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 4lh August, 1992 and order of confirmation dated 9th October, 1992 are set aside. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith in case not required in any other proceedings.