Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 498 (JK)

Latief Lone v. State & Ors.

2012-08-13

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2012
1. Quashment of pre-execution detention orders is permissible only in rare cases where facts and circumstances are such which do not call for invading the liberty of a person. It is in the same background instant petition appears to have been preferred. 2. In the grounds of detention it is stated that the petitioner is a chronic and habitual timber smuggler and often indulges in the illicit trade of timber smuggling. His such activities have been projected to be highly detrimental to environment and forest wealth. He is shown to have committed forest theft regarding which as many as five cases have been registered and last such case has been registered on 25.6.2010. Order of detention has been passed on 14.9.2011. Petition has been filed on 31st December, 2011. Initially order of detention was not stayed but then was stayed on 24.4.2012. 3. From 26th June, 2010 till dated i.e. for last more than two years no act of forest theft is attributable to the petitioner nor anything in that direction has been brought to the notice of the Court. The object of detention is to deter a person from acting in any manner as is attributable to him, in the instant case to cause damage to the forest. So when for more than two years nothing is attributed to the petitioner, that means he has shun the path, so the object of detention has been achieved. Under such circumstances to invade the right of liberty shall be impermissible. It shall be quite relevant to quote para 12 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ ble Apex Court titled T. A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala & ors., ( AIR 1990 SC 225 ): “12. Similarly when there is unsatisfactory and unexplained delay between the date of order of detention and the date of securing the arrest of the detenue, such a delay would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that the detaining authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner”. 4. When order of detention is not executed from 14.9.2011 till 24.4.2012, that also shows that there was no seriousness involved, otherwise petitioner would have been taken into custody. 4. When order of detention is not executed from 14.9.2011 till 24.4.2012, that also shows that there was no seriousness involved, otherwise petitioner would have been taken into custody. When the order is not executed immediately, that would indicate that the petitioner had stopped the activities, so was under surveillance. 5. Non execution of order of detention also reflects upon the satisfaction of the detaining authority about his decision to pass the order of detention. The respondents have not tendered any explanation so as to justify the delay in execution of the detention order. It shall be quite relevant to quote para 8 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Manju Ramesh Nahar etc. V. Union of India & ors ( AIR 1999 SC 2622 ): “8. This object can be achieved if the order is immediately executed. If, however, the authorities or those who are responsible for the execution of the order, sleep over the order and do not execute the order against the person against whom it has been issued, it would reflect upon the “satisfaction” of the detaining authority and would also be exhibitive of the fact that the immediate necessity of passing that order was wholly artificial or non-existent”. 6. Various other grounds have been projected but since detention order does not survive on the aforesaid ground, therefore, other grounds are not required to be dealt with. 7. For the afore-stated facts and law, a rare case has been made out which warrants indulgence for quashing the order of detention. Petition, as such, succeeds. Order of detention bearing No.28/DMB/PSA/2011 dated 14.09.2011 is quashed. 8. Disposed of as above. 9. Detention records, as produced, be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.