Judgment

K. N. SAIKIA, J.:- Special leave granted Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This States appeal is from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab an Haryana dated 31-7-1989 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2365 of 1988 quashing the detention order of Sukhjinder Singh, father of the respondent, under the National Security Act.

3. Sri Sukhjinder Singh has been under detention pursuant to the Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs an .Justices Order dated 28-5-1988, passed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (No. 65 of 1980), hereinafter referred to as the Act, read with Section 14-A as inserted by National Security (Amendment) Act, 1987, with a view to preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and interference with efforts of Government in coping with the terrorist an disruptive activities. He was furnished wiht the grounds of detention contained in paragraphs thereof and saying that on account of the said activities, the President of India was satisfied that he should be detained As no arguments have been based on the grounds themselves, we have not extracted them. The detenu was also informed that h had a right to make representation in writing against the detention order and if he wished to make any such representation, he should address it to the State Government through the Superintendent of Jail, and that as soon as possible, his case would be submitted to the Advisory Board within the stipulated period from the date of his detention and if he wished to make a representation to the Central Government, he should address it to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security) North Block, New Delhi through the Superintendent of Jail where he was detained. It further stated that he had also a right to appear before the Advisory Board for representing his case, and if he wished to do so, he should inform the State Government through the Superintendent of Jail in which he was detained.

4. It appears that the detenus son Sukhpal Singh filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1393 of 1988* in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana praying, inter alia, for a writ of habeas corpus; quashing of the detention order; for production of the detenu in court on the date of hearing; for directing the respondents to arrange the presence of the detenu at Chandigarh before the Advisory Board.. and for directing the respondents to ,make arrangements and pay for the expenses required to be incurred foe arranging the presence of detenus witnesses to be produced before the Board at Agartala and also of the relatives and the counsel of the detenu so as to effectively assist him in regard to presenting his case before the Advisory Board.

* Reported in (1989) 1 Recent Cri. R. 393.

5. The High Court by order dated 27-9-1988 dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition, but ordered that "the petitioner would approach the Advisory Board stationed at Chandigarh with the request for allowing the detenu to produce evidence before it at Agartala and in case his prayer was granted by the Board, the expenses for taking those witnesses to Agartala would be borne by the respondent State."

6. Sukhpal Singh later moved Criminal Writ Petition No. 2365 of 1988 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing the detention order contending, inter alia, that the order of detention was passed on 28-5-1988 in a cursory and routine manner without application of mind, much less with subjective satisfaction inasmuch as no case at all was registered against the detenu for his alleged public utterences as stated in the grounds of detention and, therefore, the detention order was liable to be quashed; that consideration of the detenus representation filed with the State Government on September 1, 1988 was inordinately delayed for two months till October 31, 1988 and even thereafter t