9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etary. The petitioner states that he had a humble beginning and that he by dint of hard labour qualified himself in law and secured significant success academically. It is alleged that the Chief Minister of Sikkim wanted him to join politics and that he incurred the wrath of the Chief Minister because of his disinclination to accept this suggestion and that the order of detention was passed against him consequently. On 29.9.1986, at 10.15 P.M. three officers of the Sikkim Police Service accompanied by two officers of the Bombay Police went to the residence of the petitioner and took him to the office of the C.I.D., Bombay where he was served with a copy of the detention order. He was detained in the police lock-up at the C.I.D. office and his request to contact a lawyer was not granted. He was kept in custody till 5.30 P.M. on 30-9-1986. At 6 P.M. on that day, he was permitted to go to his office to collect some papers. There he contacted Shri T.R. Andhyarugina, Senior Counsel and informed him that he was being taken to the Bombay Airport to be flown by flight IC-183, to Delhi. The Senior Counsel requested the police officers to permit him to approach the Bombay High Court befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of detention has to be quashed. To meet the case of the petitioner that the grounds of detention were served on him only 15 days after the order of detention a Counter Affidavit is filed, sworn to by the Home Secretary, Government of Sikkim. We extract below the relevant portion of the Counter Affidavit. On-2-10-1986, the petitioner was produced in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner was released on bail in pursuance of the order of this Hon'ble Court. On-3-10-1986, the grounds of detention alongwith the materials were handed over to Shri K.P. Subba, for service on the petitioner. Shri K.P. Subba, having learnt from Mrs. Swami, who was his surety, that the petitioner left for Bombay on the same day. On-4-10-1986, the Police Officers could not contact the petitioner in his address. He waited on 5-10-1986 also but he did not find the petitioner at his house address or in the Court. He returned to New Delhi on-6-10-1986. The writ petition No. 1015 of 1986 was heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sawant and Justice Kolse Patil and by order dated 14-10-1986 discharged the rule. The grounds of detention could not be served within the period of 5 days or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allegations are specific, pointed and necessary to be controverted. We, therefore, propose to confine ourselves purely to the question whether there has been a violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act. or not. The order of the Home Secretary directing the petitioner's detention under Section 3 of the Act was made on 25-91986 and grounds of detention were prepared on the same date. The petitioner was served with the detention order on'29-9-1986 at 10.15 P.M. He was taken to the Bombay Police lock-up that day. On 30-9-1986 at 6 P.M. he was taken to his office in Bombay. On the same day, the Bombay High Court passed an order at 7.30 P.M. staying the detention order. The Plane carrying the petitioner leaves Bombay for Delhi on the same day at 8.30 P.M. The detaining officers were informed of the order of the Bombay High Court on-1-10-1986 at 5 P.M. On the same day at 3.30 P.M. the Supreme Court directs that the petitioner shall not be taken out of Delhi. On 2-10-1986, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directs the petitioner's release on bail. On 1410-1986, the petitioner is served with grounds of detention. These facts are not disputed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1986. It is further stated that he waited on 5-10-1986 also but he did not find the petitioner at his house address or in the Court. The Counter Affidavit is not sufficiently communicative as to who this police officer was. The Counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon us the fact that this statement cannot be true because-5-10-1986 happens to be a Sunday and that no police officer would try to contact an Advocate in Court on Sunday. This police officer is said to have returned to New Delhi on-6-10-1986. The Counter Affidavit is eloquently silent about what happened after 6-101986. The Counter Affidavit thereafter discloses the fact that Shri K.P. Subba, the police officer, waited till 6th October, 1986 in Bombay and returned to Gangtok since he was not able to contact the petitioner. The complaint of the officer is that the petitioner made it impossible for him to serve the grounds of detention. Every attempt on the part of the officer to serve the petitioner with grounds of detention were rendered futile by taking advantage of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court. It is further stated in the Counter Affidavit that the grounds of detention could not be served ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
