Judgment:
S.C. Jain, J.
(1) The petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Dhingra, has challenged his detention order dated 20.5.1992 purported to have been passed under Section 3[1] read with section 2[f] of Cofeposa by filing this writ petition.
(2) The petitioner has taken several grounds in this writ petition for the quashment of the impugned detention order,namely, the non-supply of the relevant documents relied upon by the detaining authority; relying upon of irrelevant documents in passing the detention order and the delay in passing of the detention order. But much stress has been laid on the ground of non supply of the relevant documents depriving him his right of making a purposeful representation to the Advisory Board as well as to the detaining authority. Relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in CrI.W.P. Nos. 324 & 325 of 1986 - titled M.M. Yusuf vs. Union of India and Others decided on 17.3.1987,the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in his representation dated 7.5.93 the petitioner had requested for the supply of the documents referred to and stated in the representation, but these documents were not supplied to the petitioner. The Advisory Board meeting was fixed for 28.5.93 and the documents were not supplied till that date. The representation was rejected on 28.5.93 and the result was communicated to him on 29.5.93 i.e. after the hearing of the Advisory Board and the petitioner was informed that the Administrator was pleased to direct supply of all the documents, but in spite of clear order, these documents have not been supplied to the petitioner on or before the Advisory Board meeting and,till the filing of this petition, and thereforee, this has frustrated the right of the petitioner to make an effective and purposeful representation before the Advisory Board and to the Central Government. Learned counsel further submitted that even otherwise there is a long delay in supply of these documents to the petitioner and as such the detention of the petitioner is illegal and vocative of Article 22[5]of the Constitution on of India. He further argued that there is a long delay in consideration of the representation made by the petitioner on 7.5.93 to the Administrator. The said representation ought to have been considered before the Advisory Board meeting, but the Administrator having done it after the Advisory Board meeting on 29.5.93, is vocative of-Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner had made a representation to the Central Government on 7.5.93 the rejection of the said representation was communicated to the petitioner only on 29.5.93, where also it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner be supplied copies of the documents, but in spite of demand and in spite of directions or the Central Government the same has not been supplied to the petitioner. thereforee,this is vocative of Articles 14 and 22[5] of the Constitution of India making the detention illegal. He argued that in any case, there is a long delay in consideration of the said representation and long delay in supply of the documents and it makes the detention order illegal and vocative of Article 22[5] of the Constitution ofindia. Learned counsel also pointed out that the petitioner had made a representation to the Chairman and Members of the Advisory Board. The said representation has not been considered by the appropriate Government till date, depriving him of his right to represent before the Advisory Board and it is also vocative of Article 22[5] of the Constitution ofindia.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that after the meeting of the Advisory Board, he also made another representation on 31.5.93, but that representation has not been considered by the appropriate Government till date.
(5) He also relied upon a decision of this Court in Mohammeddin @ Menno vs . Union of india and Others : 38(1989)DLT120 in support of his contention. In this decision the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M.M.Yusuf vs. Union of India and Others [supra] has also been relied upon.
(6) Learned Standing counsel for the State, Mr. P.S. Sharma, countered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and drew my attention towards the counter affidavit filed by Mr. M.U.Siddiqui, Deputy Secretary [Home].
(7) A perusal of this affidavit shows that the documents as mentioned in the petitioner's representation dated 7.5.9_3weresuppliedtothe petitioneronly on2.8.93i.e.after the hearing of the Advisory Board and after filing the representation. The learned State counsel could not satisfy as to why copies of these documents were not supplied earlier to the petitioner i.e. before the meeting of the Advisory Board. There is also nothing in the affidavit of the Deputy Secretary [Home] as to why the documents relied upon and asked for by the detenu were not supplied earlier than 2.8.1993. The petitioner had specifically asked for those documents which were mentioned in the seizure memo, but he was not supplied with those documents preventing him from making an effective and purposeful representation and for laying his case before the Advisory Board in the right earnest.
(8) It is well settled that the law of preventive detention is a harsh law, and thereforee. it should be strictly construed. Care should be taken that the liberty of a person is not jeopardised, unless his case falls squarely within the four corners of the relevant law. The law of preventive detention should not be used to clip the wings of an accused, who is involved in a criminal prosecution.
(9) In this case, it is apparent from the record that the detaining authority relied upon the Panchnama dated 1 1.10.91 in respect of the search of the residential premises of the petitioner. The panchnama dated 1 1.10.91 is in respect of the search of the business premises of the petitioner and another Panchnama in respect of the search of his briefcase was also relied upon. The copies of all the search warrants and the reports of the searches have not been supplied to him and that in his representation he made a specific request in para 15th at the copies fall these documents be supplied to him immediately. According to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, these documents were only supplied to the petitioner only on 2.8.93, i.e. after the hearing before the Advisory Board and after the confirmation of the detention order.
(10) The question whether the non supply of those documents which have been specifically mentioned in the search memos and a specific demand was made by the detenu for the supply of those documents before filing his representation and before the hearing of the Advisory Board is sufficient to vitiate the detention order came up turn consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in M.M. Yusuf vs. Union of India and Others [supra] and in the Single Bench decision of this Cour tin Mohammeddin @ Memo vs. Union of India and Others [supra] and the learned Judges held that copies of the search authorisation warrants which have been referred to in the Panchnama and demanded by the detenu are bound to be supplied to the detenu and their non supply within time despite the demand made vitiates the detention order because this fact disabled the detenu from making a purposeful representation.
(11) Following the decisions of this Court in M.M. Yusuf vs. Union of india and Others (supra) and Mohammeddin Menno vs. Union of India and others (supra}. I allow this writ petition on this ground alone and set aside the impugned detention order dated 20.5.1992. I direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith unless his continued detention is justified in pursuance of some other detention order or for some other lawful cause. There will, however, be no order as to costs.