Surinder Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 3 January, 1995
v. State of Manipur, and a decision of this Court in Criminal Writ No. 30 of 1994 (P. H. Abdul Kareem v. Union of India) decided on July 28, 1994 by Dalveer Bhandari, J. Another point which has been canvassed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is inordinate delay in execution of the detention order. She has argued that the detention order was passed on 2-9-93 whereas the petitioner was arrested on 2-6-1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after passing the detention order nothing substantial was done to arrest the petitioner though the petitioner was always available and the theory put up by the respondent that the petitioner was absconding is vague and lacks in material particulars. She has also pointed out that once the respondent has taken recourse to Sec. 7 of the COFEPOSA Act it was obligatory as well as mandatory on the part of the respondent to take recourse to the provisions of Sec. 7(1)(b) of the said Act and it was obligatory on the part of the respondent to notify in the official gazette as per the requirements laid therein.