Unexplained delays in executing detention orders, particularly when the detenu is already in custody, violate procedural safeguards, rendering the detention illegal.

1. Judgment passed by learned single Judge on 28-4-1998 in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 620/97 titled above is the subject - matter of challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal. A brief the relevant facts is given hereunder.

2. It appears that the detenu was initially arrested on 10-9-1993 and some time thereafter, he was detained in the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He was released from detention on 30-7-1996. As the allegations go, the detenu did not abstain from indulging in militant activities after his release, but he was found involved in some bomb blasts that occurred at various places after July, 1996. Consequently, he was again arrested on 29-6-1997. At the time of his re - arrest, some Arms and ammunition were recovered from him and a case under FIR No. 128/97 under S.7/27, Arms Act was registered against him at Police Station Maisuma, Srinagar. A report about these alleged activities of the detenu was made to District Magistrate, Srinagar who ordered the detention of the detenu under the provisions of the Act on 28-8-1997 for a period of two years.

3. The detenu through his wife, Mst. Sharifa, challenged the detention ordered on 28-8-97 before the writ - court through the medium of HC Petition No. 620/97 on various grounds. The pleas taken in the petition before the writ - court were that the respondents have not followed the procedural safeguards provided under the provisions of the Act and Art.21 and Art.22 of the Constitution; that the respondents did not make the reference of detenue's case to the Advisory Board within the time prescribed therefor, nor did the Advisory Board send its opinion within time to the Government; that the detenu was not informed of his right of making a representation to the Government against his detention; that the detenu was not supplied with the copy of order of detention, or the material referred to in the grounds of detention; that the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu in a language (English) not comprehendable to him, as a result the detenu was prevented from making a representation against his detention to the Government; and that the detention order suffers from non - application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

4. In response to the notice issued by the writ - court, respondents caused their appearance through Mr. Amin, GA, and one A. G. Sofi, Under - Secretary to Government Home Department filed reply - affidavit on behalf of the respondents. Apart from reiterating the contents of the grounds of detention in the reply, it was disclosed therein that detenu was ordered to be detained under Order No. DMS / PSA / 193 dated 28-8-1997 for 24 months. This order of detention was executed on 15-10-1997. Reference thereabout was made to the Advisory Board on 27-11-1997. The Advisory Board sent its opinion on 5-12-1997 to the Government. Consequently, the order of detention was confirmed by the Government on 16-12-1997.

5. At the hearing before the writ - court, counsel appearing for the petitioner seems to have restricted his argument only to three points viz. (i) that since the detenu at the time of passing the order of detention was in custody of Police in connection with substantive offences, the detaining authority having failed to disclose the compelling reasons to order his detention under the provisions of PSA, the order suffers from non - application of mind; (i