9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the documents relied upon were served upon him. Raj Kumar Gupta made a representation dated 22nd April, 1991 against his detention but received no reply and so he filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order of detention and his release forthwith. 3. It would, at this stage, be appropriate to give some details of the facts leading to the issuance of the detention order against the petitioner. 4. Raj Kumar was holding Indian passport issued in his favour from Delhi on 30th December, 1988 valid upto 25th July, 1995. The petitioner arrived at Sahar Inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was given to him by one Jaspal at Singapore whom he met on 8th September, 1990 and the same was to be given to Jaspal's contact man outside Bombay Airport and he was paid Rs. 5000/- as monetary consideration. It was also stated by him that the contact man was to identify him with his photograph. It was in these circumstances that the detention order was passed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken up a number of grounds thereby challenging the detention order. However, it would be convenient to refer to only one ground since the petitioner would succeed on that ground alone and so it is not necessary to discuss the other grounds. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been an inordinate delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Police, New Delhi. All the relevant papers along with detention order were sent on 30-1-1991. However, the petitioner failed to attend the remand date at Bombay on 7-2-1991. Thereafter the Delhi Police visited the residence of the petitioner and executed the order of detention upon him on 28-3-1991. In the circumstances it is submitted that there is no undue delay in the execution of order of detention." 9. A bare reading of the reply of the Union of India makes it abundantly clear that the reply is vague inasmuch as it does not mention what efforts were made and by whom to execute this order of detention against the petitioner. All that has been stated in reply is that Delhi Police visited the residence of the petitioner and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
