Union of India & Ors Vs. Parasmal Rampuria
 INSC 161 (16 March 1998)
Majmudar, S.P. Kurdukar Majmudar, J.;
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
view, a very unusual order seems to have been passed in a pending appeal by the
Division Bench of the High Court. It is challenged by the Union of India in
these appeals. A detention order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act was
passed by the authorities on 13th September, 1996 against the respondent. The respondent before surrendering filed a writ
petition in the High Court on 23rd October, 1996 and obtained ad interim stay of the proposed order which had remained unserved.
The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties vacated the ad interim
relief. Thereafter, the respondent went in appeal before the Division Bench and
again obtained ad interim relief on 10th January, 1997 which was extended from time to
time. The writ appeal has not been still disposed of.
the writ petition was filed, the respondent had not surrendered. Under these
circumstances, the proper order which was required to be passed was to call
upon the respondent first to surrender pursuant to the detention order and then
to have all his grievances examined on merits after he had an opportunity to
study the grounds of detention and to make his representation against the said
grounds as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It is true
as the learned partly heard before the Division Bench and the last hearing was
over on 4th June, 1997 and thereafter, the Bench has not
reassembled. It is obvious that for the same neither the respondent nor the
appellant is at fault. However, the fact remains that the detention order dated
13th September, 1996 has still not been executed and the respondent has not
surrendered. Under these circumstances, in our view, it will be appropriate to
direct that the ad interim relief which is extended from time to time by the
Division Bench of the High Court and which was continued all throughout, shall
stand vacated. We also vacate the further orders of extension of interim relief
and direct the respondent to surrender in the light of the detention order. After
surrendering it will be open to the respondent to amend his writ petition and
to take all permissible legal grounds to challenge the detention order and
these grounds will have to be considered by the High Court on their own merits
after hearing the parties. These appeals have been moved Also against various
extensions of interim relief orders passed by the Division Bench pending the
appeal. All these extension orders are also set aside.
make it clear that we make no observation on the merits of the controversy
centering round this detention order. The said controversy will have to be
resolved by the High Court in the pending writ petition after hearing the
request of the learned senior counsel for the respondent the writ appeal which
is pending, is permitted to be withdrawn as the rightly submits that it has
become infructuous pursuant to this order. The appellant is given liberty to
execute the detention order forthwith as its execution is already delayed by
more than one year and six months.
parting with the case, we must mention one contention canvassed by the learned
senior counsel for the respondent. He submitted that though the detention order
was dated 13th
September, 1996, it
was not executed against the respondent till he obtained interim relief from
the learned single Judge on 23rd October, 1996 and thereafter also subsequently there was no interim relief from
12.11.1996 to 10.1.1997, yet the order of detention was not executed.
Therefore, according to him, the order of detention has become stale. This
contention can be canvassed by proper amendment to the writ petition after the
respondent surrenders. As and when such amendment is moved, it will be open to
the appellants to contest the amended petition on all legally permissible
grounds and to have their say as to why the order was not executed during the
time when there was no stay. All these questions are kept open for
consideration of the High Court in the pending writ petition.
appeals are allowed accordingly.