# Singh Darsikha v. State of Punjab AIR - **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 421 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-07-03 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/singh-darsikha-v-state-of-punjab-air-39923 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 226- Detention order- challenge made in two aspects- authority not told about right of representation- secondly- detention order itself can not fix the period of detention. Held- Para 4 As already stated above, we were disinclined to interfere in such a case but we have to do so with a heavy heart as the law of Habeas Corpus is a technical law and there are two points on which the petition has to be allowed. Firstly, it is alleged in paragraphs 25,26 and 27 of the petition that the Detaining Authority did not informe the petitioner that he has a right to make a representation against the detention order to the Detaining Authority. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. Hence in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Jai Prakash Shastri v. Adhishak Janpad Karagar 2000 (41) ACC 883 which followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 422 Vs. Santosh Shastri Acharya JT 2000 (8) SC 374 the impugned detention order becomes illegal. Secondly the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention order itself. Secondly the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention order itself cannot fix the period of detention at the initial stage has also to be accepted in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Makhan Singh Darsikha v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 27, which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Adesh Kumar v. Adhishak Karagar 1997 UP Crl. Rulings 647. Case law discussed: 2000(41) ACC 883 JT 2000 (8) SC- 374 AIR 1952 SC-27 1997 UP Crl. Rulings 647 ## Text 2 All] Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs. Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur and others 421 and in my opinion rightly the comparison of needs does not arise. 6. Sri Swapnil Kumar wanted to raise objection that in any view of the matter, the possession of Uttam Chandra should be deemed to have been regularized under Section 14 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. This point has not been raised either before the prescribed authority or before the appellate authority. 7. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a point which requires evidence after a gap of about 22 years of filing application under Section 21(i) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion the petition is dismissed. There will, however, be order as to cost. 9. Shri Swapnil Kumar requested that the tenant may be granted sometime to vacate the shop in question. Sri Prakash Gupta has not objected to this. I think in the interest of justice four months' time may be granted from today to petitioner to vacate the accommodation in question and hand over the vacant possession of accommodation provided Uttam Chandra deposits the mean profit at the rate of then existing rent alongwith interest at bank rate and the land lord is entitled to withdraw the same alongwith usual undertaking before the prescribed authority within 15 days from today. 10. The petition is dismissed except with the aforesaid observations. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J. Habeas Corpus petition no. 20142 of 2002 Vijay Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner Versus Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Daya Shanker Misra Sri C.K. Misra Sri L.K. Dwevedi Counsel for the Respondents: Government Counsel Sri Ajit Kumar Singh Constitution of India, Article 226- Detention order- challenge made in two aspects- authority not told about right of representation- secondly- detention order itself can not fix the period of detention. Held- Para 4 As already stated above, we were disinclined to interfere in such a case but we have to do so with a heavy heart as the law of Habeas Corpus is a technical law and there are two points on which the petition has to be allowed. Firstly, it is alleged in paragraphs 25,26 and 27 of the petition that the Detaining Authority did not informe the petitioner that he has a right to make a representation against the detention order to the Detaining Authority. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. Hence in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Jai Prakash Shastri v. Adhishak Janpad Karagar 2000 (41) ACC 883 which followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 422 Vs. Santosh Shastri Acharya JT 2000 (8) SC 374 the impugned detention order becomes illegal. Secondly the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention order itself. Secondly the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention order itself cannot fix the period of detention at the initial stage has also to be accepted in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Makhan Singh Darsikha v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 27, which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Adesh Kumar v. Adhishak Karagar 1997 UP Crl. Rulings 647. Case law discussed: 2000(41) ACC 883 JT 2000 (8) SC- 374 AIR 1952 SC-27 1997 UP Crl. Rulings 647 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. Heard Sri D.S. Misra learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government counsel for the respondents. This is a writ petition, which we are allowing with a heavy heart despite all our inclination to the contrary. 2. The petitioner who has been elected MLA from the Samajwadi Party is challenging the impugned order of detention dated 24.4.2002 (Annexsure-1 to the petition) passed under the National Security Act. Annexure-2 to the petition is the ground of detention which mentions as many as 38 Criminal Cases against the petitioner of these, 8 cases are under section 302 IPC, about 10 cases under section 307 IPC and there are other cases under section 376 IPC, 452 IPC and U.P. Control of Goondas Act, Gangsters Act, Arms Act etc. 3. The petitioner Vijay Kumar Misra has been elected Member of the Legislative Assembly of U.P. in the recent election. This case illustrates the level of criminalisation that has taken place unfortunately in our public life. It is well known that a large number of such MLA's are reputed Criminals, Gangsters or Mafia leaders. What will happen to our country in this state of affairs can well be imagined. 4. As already stated above, we were disinclined to interfere in such a case but we have to do so with a heavy heart as the law of Habeas Corpus is a technical law and there are two legal points on which the petition has to be allowed. Firstly, it is alleged in paragraphs 25,26 and 27 of the petition that the Detaining Authority did not informe the petitioner that he has a right to make a representation against the detention order to the Detaining Authority. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. Hence in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Jai Prakash Shastri v. Adhishak Janpad Karagar 2000 (41) ACC 883 which followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra vs. Santosh Shastri Acharya JT 2000 (8) SC 374 the impugned detention order becomes illegal. Secondly the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention order itself cannot fix the period of detention at the initial stage has also to be accepted in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Makhan Singh Darsikha v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 27, which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Adesh Kumar vs. Adhikashak Karagar 1997 U.P. Crl. Rulings 647. 2 All] Brij Nandan Vs. District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai and others 423 5.For the reasons given above the petition is allowed. 5. Impugned detention order dated 24.4.2002 is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless he is required in some other criminal or preventive detention case. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21 MAY, 2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 44581 of 2001 Brij Nandan ...Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Tejpal Sri Sukhendra Pal Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.N. Srivastava A.G.A. Constitution of India, Article 226 Detention order challenged- Petitioner envolving so many serious offences- creating terror by threatening common people- held- amounts not only disturbance of law and order but the Public Order has been disturbed. Held- Para 5 We are satisfied that the petitioner has disturbed public order and not merely law and order. The large number of serious cases against the petitioner show that he is a hardened criminal and creates terror in the public. Case law discussed. 2000(i) JIC (SC) 221 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of detention dated 26.9.2001 passed under the National Security Act. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that it is alleged therein that on 8.6.2001 the petitioner with his brother and associates came with guns and shot one Santosh Kumar on his chest due to which he fell down and died. This created terror and panic in the locality and people shut their houses and a case under section 302 IPC was registered. The said incident occurred in a congested locality, which created terror in the public, and public order was disturbed. 3. It is also alleged that on 3.5.2000 the petitioner shot at one Ramji when he had come to appear before the court and a case under section 307 IPC was registered against him. On 14.5.98 the petitioner had given shelter to some anti social elements who had guns and when the Police party arrived at the spot the petitioner and his four associates fired at the Police. The Police had recovered the petitioner's rifle. A case under section 307 IPC has also been registered in this connection. On 28.5.97 at 3.35 p.m. the petitioner and his associates shot dead one Shyam Sharma and a case under section 302/307 IPC has been registered in this connection. On 23.7.97 at 7.15 p.m. the petitioner attempted to kill one Yugal Kishore and Maharaj Singh and case under section 307