IMPORTANT POINT
Where order of detention under section 3 of National Security Act, 1980 was served but grounds of detention are served more than 5 days thereof but before 15 days it should be supported by an order recording reasons for delay which are subject to legal scrutiny and if are found unsatisfactory, court would still quash the order of detention being violative of mandatory requirements under section 8(1) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Khalid, J. - Shorn of details regarding allegations of mala-fides unsupported by acceptable evidence, the only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground that the mandatory requirements, contained in Section 8(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have not been complied with.

2. The facts: The petitioner is one Hem Lall Bhandari residing in Bombay, practising law there. The first respondent is the State of Sikkim through its Home Secretary, the second respondent, the Delhi Administration, Police Department and the third respondent, the Union of India through the Home Secretary. The petitioner states that he had a humble beginning and that he by dint of bard labour qualified himself in law and secured significant success academically. It is alleged that .the Chief Minister of Sikkim wanted him to join politics and that he incurred the wrath of the Chief Minister because of his disinclination to accept this suggestion and that the order of detention was passed against him consequently.

3. On 29-9-1986, at 10.15 P.M. three officers of the Sikkim Police Service accompanied by two officers of the Bombay Police went to the residence of the petitioner and took him to the office of the C.I.D., Bombay where he was served with a copy of the detention order. He detained in the police lock-up at the C.I.D. office and his request to contact a lawyer was not granted. He was kept in custody till 5.30 P.M. on 30.9.1986. At 6 P.M. on that day, he was permitted to go to his office to collect some papers. There he contacted Shri T.R. Andhyarujna, Senior Counsel and informed him that he was being taken to the Bombay Airport to be flown by flight IC-183, to Delhi. The Senior Counsel requested the police officers to permit him to approach the Bombay High Court before taking the petitioner to Delhi. This request was not granted. However, he filed a habeas corpus petition for the release of the petitioner in the Bombay High Court on the same day and P.B. Sawant, J. stayed the order of detention as per the following order at 7.30 P.M.:

"There are no grounds of detention furnished, nor any documents, along with the order. The grounds for detention have to be served alongwith the order. The order is prima-facie illegal. It is, therefore, stayed till further orders from this Court."

4. This order could not be served on the detaining officer as the Plane carrying the petitioner took off to Delhi at 8.30 P.M. Meanwhile at 11.30 P.M. Shri Andhyarujna telephonical1y informed a Delhi Advocate, Dr. Mrs. Swamy, of the order passed by the Bombay High Court. On receipt of this information, she informed the officer on duty at the Airport, of the order of Bombay High Court. Nothing happened. Therefore a petitioner was filed before this Court on 1st October, 1986 at 2.30 P.M. on which this Court passed an order directing that the petitioner be detained in Delhi and should not be removed from Delhi by the respondents and further that he should be produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who might release him on bail if he thought it fit. On 2.10.1986, the petitioner was brought before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who after hearing the parties granted bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was released the same evening at 4.30 P.M. on furnishing a bond of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety in the like sum. The petitioner returned to Bombay the next day.

5. The address of the petitioner is well known to the respondents. No serious attempt was made by them between 2.10.1986 and 14.10.1986 to serve the petitioner with the grounds of detention. On 6th October, 1986, the petitioner attended the Bombay High Court in connection with the writ petition filed there and has been regularly attending his office and carrying on his professional duties both in the office and in the High Court. On 14.10.1986, the petitioner was served with th